Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Pon.Saraswathi - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Namakkal & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 32833 of 2017
Decided on : 16-11-2018
For the Petitioner:L. Chandrakumar, A. Saravanan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S.N. Parthasarathy, Government Advocate, R. Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate.
The legal ownership of assigned properties and the lack of evidence for encroachment were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Land Assignment - Violation of Conditions - State Highways Act, 1988, Section 86 - The court discussed the assignment of land by the State Government, the conditions imposed, and the alleged violations by the assignee. The court also considered the road widening process, encroachment on state highway land, and the legal validity of the assignment and patta issued to the assignee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the assignment of land to the 8th respondent, alleging violations of the assigned land's conditions and encroachment on state highway land. The petitioner sought the removal of encroachment and road widening.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 8th respondent did not encroach on the state highway land and had legal ownership of the assigned properties. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim for relief.
Issues: Violation of land assignment conditions, encroachment on state highway land, legal validity of assignment and patta, road widening process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims of encroachment and the legal ownership of the assigned properties by the 8th respondent.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Counter of the seventh Respondent is filed.
3. According to the Petitioner, the land admeasuring an extent of 2 cents in Survey No.70/2 and 1 cent in Survey No.70/3 in all measuring an extent of 3 cents of land in Seetharamapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District was assigned by the State Government to the 8th Respondent. At the time of assignment of land, certain conditions were mentioned in the assignment order itself. In fact, the land assigned was under the category of Landless Persons living below the poverty line.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the land, in question, is to be utilised for dwelling purpose only and if there is any violation in regard to the conditions imposed, the same would result in cancellation of assignment, in question. However, the Eighth Respondent/assignee is leading a sophisticated life living in an independent house and having 5 acres of land and as such, he cannot be termed as a person, living below the poverty line.
5. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the Eighth Respondent had put up a commercial construction in the assigned land and let out the same for commercial go down and consequently, the Eighth Respondent has not only violated the condition specified under the assignment, but also encroached the State Highway land and is causing hindrances to the traffic by parking heavy vehicles on the highway to load and unload the material to the heavy trucks dumped in the said lorry booking office cum go down and thereby causing heavy traffic in the said road, wherein surrounded by the Government School, Combined Court Complex, Primary Health Care Center and way to Sankari Railway Station. Furthermore, this is the main road in Tiruchengode Town and busiest road in that locality.
6. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Highway Department had commenced Road widening Process due to over traffic and congested situation in the State Highway No.86 leading to Tiruchengode-Sankari main Road and the road widening work is being stalled by the Eighth Respondent in the portion of area in Survey No.70 which is under the commercial use of the Eighth Respondent.
7. Since the Eighth Respondent had constructed six shops and rent out the same for commercial purposes like lorry booking office and go downs etc., which is utter violation of the terms and conditions stipulated under the order of assignment, the main road has become a narrow one in certain places although it was widened in all other places as per the approval of the State Government.
8. That apart, the fourth Respondent had passed a Resolution in Tiruchengode Municipality vide Resolution No.641 dated 24.11.2014 to remove the said encroachment and to widen the main road pursuant to the road widening process already carried out in the said State Highways No.86.
9. The Petitioner in his Writ Petition had proceeded to state that the Fourth Respondent/The Commissioner, Tiruchengode Municipality could not carry out the drainage construction work in the main road because of the encroachment made by the Eighth Respondent in the State Highway No.86. As such, general public of Tiruchengode made a representation to the authorities concerned and in particular, to the Respondents 1 to 7, whereby and where under, a request was made to complete the road widening work in Tiruchengode-Sankari Main Road (S.H.No.86) and also complete the drainage construction work. In fact, the Petitioner also addressed a communication dated 27.03.2017 to the First Respondent with a request to take appropriate action in respect of the encroachment made by the Eighth Respondent.
10. The Petitioner has come out with a plea in the Writ Petition that the fifth Respondent/The Tahsildar, Tiruchengode Taluk through his Proceedings dated 29.04.2017 had addressed a communication to the seventh Respondent/The Assistant Director, Highways Department, Tiruchengode by mentioning the Petitioner's representation d
