IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
S. Seenichami - Appellant
Versus
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajapalayam - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 154 of 2022, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 120, 121 of 2022
Decided On : 04-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to public auction notice based on historical rights. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the applicability of the government order. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on the nature of fishery rights and applicable law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final ruling protecting petitioner's rights. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
1. Challenging the impugned Fishery Public Auction notice in Na.Ka.No:Ko23(4)/U.Po.(Sa)/2021, dated 21.12.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent with regard to Serial Number 6, Periyur Periya Kanmoi situated in Periyur Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District, this Writ Petition has been filed.
2. A tank, named, Periyur Periya Kanmoi is situated in Survey Nos. 805 and 806, Periyur village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi district and the writ petitioner is the president of Periyur Periyakulam Water Users Association. On 21.07.1942, the writ petitioner's grandfather, namely, Mr.Vellaiyathevar participated in the auction conducted by the learned District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, in O.S.No.47 of 1937 and purchased the fishery right of the said tank. On 31.08.1942, the sale certificate was also issued, declaring the writ petitioner's grandfather as certified auction purchaser, since then his father was in possession of the tank and he was doing fishing activities. Fishery patta No.1 and other revenue records were mutated in favor of the petitioner's father and he was paying taxes in his name. After his demise, the writ petitioner had survived him and had mutated the fishery right of the aforesaid tank and the fishery patta in his favor and is continuing to do fishing activities. During the period from 2011 and 2015, the respondents were taking steps to bring the said tank for public auction. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents along with relevant documents, not to take any hasty steps in this regard, by bringing the aforesaid tank for public auction. On perusal of the documents submitted by the writ petitioner, the respondents dropped their action to conduct public auction with respect to the aforesaid tank. Even for the present year, the writ petitioner has let in fishlings. However, to his shock and surprise, the respondents are taking steps to bring the aforesaid tank, that is, the Periyur Periyakulam tank for public auction. Hence, once again on 03.12.2021, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents, requesting not to bring the Periyur Periyakulam tank for public auction. However, even without issuance of notice or cancelling the petitioner's fishing patta, the public auction notice came to be issued by the second respondent vide impugned fishery public auction notice in Na.Ka.No.Ko23(4)/U.Po. (Sa)/2021, dated 21.12.2021 and the said Periyur Periyakulam tank was brought for public auction. Challenging the same, this petition is filed
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the strength of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.16, Public Work (W2) Department, dated 14.01.2011, the respondents have issued the impugned notice, by bringing the Periyur Periyakulam for public auction. However, the aforesaid Government Order will not cover the case of the tank in question. G.O.Ms.No.16, Public Works Department, dated 14.01.2011, deals with those tanks under the Water Resources Organization. However, the Periyur Periyakulam tank had never ever been under the Water Resources Organization and the said tank was the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.47 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif Court, at Tenkasi and the fishery right of the Periyur Periyakulam was purchased in the Court auction by the petitioner's grandfather, namely, Thiru. Vellaiyathevar, in whose favor a sale auction certificate has also been issued by the said Court by sale certificate dated 31.08.1942, on the basis of which, a Fishery Patta No.1 was issued in favor of the petitioner's father and after his demise, the same has been mutated in favor of the petiti
Santhosh Jayaswal and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
AI
Ownership of fishery rights, acquired through historical court auction, cannot be negated by new government orders; such rights are classified as profit a prendre and treated as immovable property.
The court affirmed that inherited fishing rights, established by a court auction, cannot be overridden by public auction notices under inapplicable government orders.
Customary fishing rights of temples cannot be revoked by executive orders lacking statutory authority, reaffirming the temple's ownership and rights over the tanks.
Certificate proceedings for unpaid bid amounts under OPDR Act require a valid registered lease deed; absence of such documentation renders proceedings invalid.
Point of law: justification being given for attempting a new experiment is the stand of the Government that the earlier system was not benefitting the target group of fishermen and the natural resour....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.