Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1423
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
S. Meenatchi - Appellant
Versus
The Additional Collector (Development), District Rural Development Agency, Dindigul & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No. 3148 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 3377 & 3989 of 2022
Decided On : 01-04-2022
For the Petitioner:K. Surendran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, R2, R4 to R7, S. Jeyapriya, Government Advocate, R3, D.S. Nedunchezhian, Government Advocate, R8, M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
The Panchayat President must act responsibly and in the public interest when exercising statutory powers under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Order passed by Block Development Officer challenged - Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, Section 143-A - The court dismissed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the attachment notice issued by the Panchayat President was not in accordance with the law and the impugned communication could not be challenged by the petitioner. The court also emphasized the importance of responsible conduct by the Panchayat President and the need to act in the public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The Panchayat President issued an attachment notice against a respondent for encroaching on government lands and initiating construction work without approval. The respondent denied the allegations and filed a counter affidavit, claiming ownership of the lands and accusing the petitioner of demanding illegal gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the attachment notice issued by the Panchayat President was not in accordance with the law and dismissed the Writ Petition. The court emphasized the importance of responsible conduct by the Panchayat President and the need to act in the public interest.
Issues: 1. Validity of the attachment notice issued by the Panchayat President. 2. Allegations of illegal gratification against the Panchayat President.
Ratio Decidendi: The attachment notice issued by the Panchayat President was not in accordance with the law, and the impugned communication could not be challenged by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of responsible conduct by the Panchayat President and the need to act in the public interest.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the third respondent and quash his orders / advice Na.Ka.No.138/2022/2Thi, dated 03.02.2022 and Na.Ka.No.138/2022/2Thi, dated 07.02.2022 and order valuation of the materials by the engineer Panchayat Union then permit the petitioner office or any competent office this Court deems fit and to call for auctionor this materials attached.)
The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether an order passed by the third respondent/Block Development Officer, dated 03.02.2022 stating that the attachment of building materials by the petitioner, who is a Panchayat President, cannot be done without the permission of the District Collector and revenue officials, can be challenged by the petitioner in a Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner is the Panchayat President of Nadakottai Panchayat, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. She has effected attachment of materials lying in the premises of the eighth respondent situated at S.Nos.260/2, 260/4, 262/1, 262/2, 262/3, 262/4, 262/5, 318/3, 318/5, 319/1, 319/3A, 319/3B, 319/3C, 319/4A, 320/1, 321/2B2, 321/2B3, 321/3 and 364/5 at Nadakottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, under Section 143-A of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
3. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned lands are bhoodan and gramadhan lands and cannot be alienated. It is the contention of the petitioner that a gramasabha of Nadakottai Panchayat passed a resolution on 02.10.2021 that the lands, which are in illegal possession of the eighth respondent should be retrieved by the authorities. According to the petitioner, there is an error in the UDR patta issued in favour of the eighth respondent. According to the petitioner, the eighth respondent can never become the owner of the subject lands.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the eighth respondent has encroached upon the Government lands in S.Nos.244/1, 244/8, 251/2, 253/1, 256/1B, 264, 321/2B1 and 322/3, measuring approximately ten acres. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the eighth respondent has also encroached and destroyed streams, regular pathway, ooranis, public wells and bore wells, which are directly maintained by the Panchayat.
5. According to the petitioner, without approval of the Panchayat Union, the eighth respondent has initiated construction work in the subject property. According to the petitioner, on 12.01.2022, she issued a statutory notice under Section 143-A of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to the eighth respondent calling upon them to stop the construction work and remove the construction materials from the site within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that no reply was received by the petitioner to the statutory notice and only thereafter, the petitioner ordered attachment of building materials lying in the eighth respondent's premises. However, according to the petitioner, arbitrarily and illegally, without taking action against the eighth respondent, the third respondent has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner, dated 03.02.2022 stating that the attachment of building materials by the petitioner cannot be done without the permission of the District Collector and revenue officials. According to the petitioner, the act of the third respondent under the impugned order would tantamount to helping a wrong doer, who is the eighth respondent herein. It is the contention of the petitioner that the third respondent does not have any legal authority to issue the impugned direction to the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the eighth respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the eighth respondent, the Writ Petition filed by the Panchayat President is not
