Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, JJ.
M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Principal Secretary to the Government Department of Revenue, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1960 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 15665 of 2018 & W.M.P. No. 34570, 31683 of 2018 & Writ Petition No. 27234 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2019
For the Appellant :A.L. Somayajee, Senior Counsel, assisted by T. Balaji for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.R. Rajagopalan, Additional Advocate General – IX, Assisted by Jayaprakash Narayanan, Additional Government Pleader, S. Kamadevan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 6 and 7 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - section 31(3) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Government poramboke land - remove the railway line - appellant Company wanted to have a railway – Acquisition of Land - appellant is a cement manufacturer. The appellant Company wanted to have a railway siding from their factory premises to the nearest railway station at Sillakkudi. The appellant states that it made applications to the State Government, for permission, to utilise the Government poramboke land, on payment of prescribed fee, as determined by the Government. According to the appellant, permission was sought for, from the District Collector, to utilise the Government poramboke land by exchanging patta lands, for government poramboke land – Held, land relinquished, the difference should invariably be collected from the party concerned. Where the assignment is made subject tot he usual conditions, the exchange may be sanctioned by the Collector, if the value of the land assigned does not exceed Rs.1,000/- and by the Board of Revenue if such value does not exceeds Rs.10,000/-. The sanction of the Government should be obtained if the value of the land assigned exceeds Rs.10,000/-, or if any departure is to be made from the usual conditions of assignment or if the case falls under section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act - Cancellation of exchange: if after a private holding or any portion thereof has been relinquished, it is found objectionable to assign the land at the disposal of the Government or if the assignment made is set aside on appeal or revision, the immediate superior of the officer who accepted the relinquishment or the authority which set aside the order of the assignment, as the case may be, may cancel the order accepting the relinquishment and restore the land to its owner - A perusal of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, extracted supra, does not give any right to the petitioner, to justify the action, of laying a railway line, without any permission. There is no right to ask for exchange of properties. In fact, the Government cannot even entertain such an application, for exchange of poramboke lands and especially water bodies with patta lands. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not shown that the State Government is vested with any such power to exchange water porambokes with patta land belonging to private persons. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and there is no right in favour of the petitioner, to ask for exchange of poramboke land, more specifically in water bodies, with their patta lands - Sub-Collector, Ariyalur has categorically found that the railway line has been laid on water way poramboke and vari poramboke. It is well settled that water bodies cannot be encroached and constructions cannot be raised on water bodies. The Sub-Collector has found that natural water bodies is destroyed because of the pit 60” x 30” dug by the appellant and all this has been done, without obtaining any permission – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Subramonium Prasad, J.
(Prayer in W.A.No.1960 of 2018: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13/8/2018, passed in W.P.No.4779 of 2015.
W.P.No.27234 of 2018 :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the proposal of exchange/permission as sought by the petitioner Company vide its representation dated 5/5/2009, 6/6/2009, 10/9/2009, 30/10/2009 & 11/2/2014, with respect to Government poramboke lands to the extent of 7.22.0 Ha (17.83 acres) comprised in S.F.Nos.237/9, 240, 249, 271, 279, 321, 25, 27, 40, 42, 4/11, 4/15, 5/1, 58, 37, 39, 67, 72, 143/8, 162/2 & 162/8 situate at Parpanachery, Keezhaiyur & Keezhapulvur villages of Ariyalur District and Silakudi Village of Perambalur District, respectively.)
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13/8/2018, passed in W.P.No.4779 of 2015, by which the writ Court, dismissed the writ petition, challenging the order, dated 10/2/2015, made in Na.Ka.No.A5/1849/2014, passed by the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur District.
2. Vide proceeding, dated 10/2/2015, the Sub-Collector, Ariyalur District, held that the appellant Chettinad Cements which had laid a railway line had encroached into waterway poramboke and vari poramboke which belonged to Government and the same is not permissible. The Sub Collector also held that in S.No.27, Keezhaiyur village, an area of 0.16.0 hectare is a pond poramboke land and by laying down the railway line, the appellant has damaged the natural waterway to the extent of 60 ft., length and 30 ft. width, which has affected the natural watercourse. The Sub Collector also held that the railway line has also affected the usual pathway of the owners of the land near the railway line. The Sub-Collector held that the railway line has been laid without any permission from the Authority. The sub Collector by the order impugned in the writ petition has directed the appellant to close the railway line and restore the land.
3. Facts in brief leading to the writ appeal are as under :-
The appellant is a cement manufacturer. The appellant Company wanted to have a railway siding from their factory premises to the nearest railway station at Sillakkudi. The appellant states that it made applications to the State Government, for permission, to utilise the Government poramboke land, on payment of prescribed fee, as determined by the Government. According to the appellant, permission was sought for, from the District Collector, to utilise the Government poramboke land by exchanging patta lands, for government poramboke land.
4. The appellants rely on a letter dated 27.12.2011 of the Section Engineer/P.Way/Office, Lalgudi. The letter reads as under:-
“As per the instructions of Sr.DEN/North/TPJ, the P.Way yard arrangements consisting of Loading lines Rds.1 & 2, Engine escape line Rd.No.3 inside the factory limits of CCCL taking of from Sillakkudi Station has been inspected by the undersigned on 23.12.2011 & 24.12.2011. The siding taking off from challenge 616.00 from the C.L. of SLTH yard upto the : 6317.25(buffer) ends inside factory limits was also inspected by FOOT /PT on 23.12.2011 & 24.12.2011. A trial run over the siding from Sillakkudi was conducted at a speed of 20 kmph on 26.12.2011.
It is hereby certified that the works have been completed as per approved drawings. After satisfying that the relevant provisions of IRPWM track structure are substantially complied with, the track is certified fit for goods traffic at a speed of 15 Kmph.”
5. Material on record further discloses that though there are exchange of letters between the Government and appellant, there has been no final permission granted by the Government approving construction of the railway line.
6. On a petition given by certain villagers stating that their access to the lands have been cut off, on 2/2/2015, a notice was sent by the Sub-Collector, A
