Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4629 (MAD)

R. Ganesan v. The District Collector & Others

2009-11-02

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, R.BANUMATHI, VASANTHAKUMAR

body2009
Judgment :- In this Public Interest Litigation, petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of first respondent in the proceedings Na.Ka.No.1515/2008/m8 dated 110. 2009 and to direct the first respondent to allot place of construction of the Tank in any one of the poromboke lands available in Survey Nos. 174, 147/1 and 137/3 of Kottapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. 2. S.No.171/1 - 14. 5 Hectares of Kottapalayam Village has been classified as Mandaiveli Poramboke. In S.No.171/1 GramaSabha has passed resolution of construction of new Tank under All Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (midj;J fpuhk mz;zh kWkyh;r;rp jpl;lk;) and administrative permission was also granted. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the proposed Tank is constructed in S.No.171/1, land meant for grazing of cattle will be reduced. Further grievance of the petitioner is that S.No.171/4 is Mayanam and if the Tank is constructed in S.No.171/1 there will be seepage of water and soil of the graveyard will be water logged making it difficult to bury dead bodies. It is further stated that the construction of the Tank in S.No.171/1 will obstruct Ponni Aaru Stream, whereby more than 70 acres of lands of villagers getting irrigation facilities may be affected. 3. We have heard Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for fourth respondent. 4. Earlier the petitioner has filed W.P.No.16979 of 2009 seeking Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents from locating pond in S.No.171/1. By the order dated 21.08.2009, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing first respondent/District Collector to look into the representations of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision after enquiry. Pursuant to the direction of the First Bench, District Collector (first respondent) conducted enquiry on 010. 2009 and 010. 2009 and enquired the petitioner, Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer, Agriculturalist and other general public. After due enquiry, District Collector has passed the impugned order permitting fourth respondent to proceed with construction of the Tank in S.No.171/1 imposing the following conditions: a) The Tank should be constructed in the northern boundary of Survey No.171/1 with a maximum distance away from the proposed site. There should be 100 feet distance from the new Tank and the graveyard situated in Survey No.171/4. There should be 100 feet distance from the new Tank and the graveyard situated in Survey No.171/4. b) The Tank should be constructed with boundary walls to an extent of 3 metres without any seepage of water. Outlet to be made below the present ground level. c) The sand dug up from the area should be used to level the low level areas in the graveyard after utilizing it for making boundaries of the Tank. d) To explain the details of the Tank to be constructed without seepage of water under All Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittaam, to remove the fear among the villagers and to proceed with construction with proper protection to continue the project. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before proceeding with the proposed construction for Tank, Rules 3, 4, 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha (Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings) Rules, 1998 were not followed. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad submitted that there was no meeting convened as per the rules for convening GramaSabha and while so, first respondent was not right in saying that the resolution was made in GramaSabha for construction of new Tank. Pursuant to the orders of First Bench in W.P.No.16979 of 2009 dated 21.08.2009, since the first respondent/District Collector has made an elaborate enquiry examining the petitioner, Village Administrative Officer, Block Development Officer, Agriculturalists and other general public, it may not be necessary for us to go into the merits of the contention whether the rules for convening Grama Sabha were complied with or not. 6. Insofar as first grievance of the petitioner that by construction of the Tank, the area meant for grazing of cattle would be reduced, it is seen from the Adangal produced by fourth respondent that S.No.171/1 -14. 5 Hectares has been classified as bts;sthhp ke;ijbtsp. By perusal of the order of first respondent, it is seen that out of total extent of 14. 5 Hectares, the Tank is about to be constructed only in an extent of 0.12.0 Hectares (1200 sq.m). Hence, even after construction of the Tank, sufficient land is available for grazing of cattle. 7. 5 Hectares has been classified as bts;sthhp ke;ijbtsp. By perusal of the order of first respondent, it is seen that out of total extent of 14. 5 Hectares, the Tank is about to be constructed only in an extent of 0.12.0 Hectares (1200 sq.m). Hence, even after construction of the Tank, sufficient land is available for grazing of cattle. 7. Insofar as second objection raised regarding seepage of water in the burial ground, to prevent seepage of water, District Collector has imposed the condition "that the Tank should be constructed with boundary walls to an extent of 3 meters with R.R.Masonary. Outlet also to be made below the ground level." The first respondent has clearly observed that when boundary walls to an extent of 3 meters with R.R.Masonary, there may not be seepage of water in the burial ground. 8. Insofar as third objection of petitioner that the proposed Tank would obstruct the water courses, the learned Government Pleader has produced a rough plan. By perusal of plan, it is seen that on the eastern side, there is Palamedu Chinna Eri, from which there is a surplus water route on the eastern side of the proposed Tank. There is also yet another Vaikkal proceeding from Konnatha Goundan Eri and Ponni Aaru Stream, which is situated on the southern side. So far as the apprehension of the petitioner regarding obstruction of water courses, learned Government Pleader has stated that the Tank would be constructed without obstructing water courses :- (i) Eri Surplus Water Route, (ii) Konnatha Goundan Eri Vaikkal, and (iii) Ponni Aaru Water Stream. 9. Learned counsel for fourth respondent submitted that the petitioners family owns land in S.Nos.170 and 171 and that the petitioner has infact encroached a portion of the land in S.No.171/1. Such encroachment is denied by the petitioner. Village Administrative Officer, Kottapalayam has also given certificate to the effect that there is no such encroachment by the petitioner in S.No.171/1 -Mandaiveli Poramboke. But, admittedly lands of family members of petitioner is situated in S.Nos.170, 171 and 172. 10. It was also submitted that S.No.172 is in the name of Ramaiah Gounder, father of the petitioner and the petitioner is utilising the Mandaiveli and that is why he is objecting to the construction of the Tank. But, admittedly lands of family members of petitioner is situated in S.Nos.170, 171 and 172. 10. It was also submitted that S.No.172 is in the name of Ramaiah Gounder, father of the petitioner and the petitioner is utilising the Mandaiveli and that is why he is objecting to the construction of the Tank. Further, S.No.170/1 just on the northern side of the tank is said to be in the name of Nallayammal -mother of the petitioner. It was also submitted by learned counsel for fourth respondent that no villager has raised objection excepting the petitioner and one Sasikumar, S/o. Rangasamy and Perumayee, who are said to be enjoying a portion of Mandaiveli Poramboke. Since, lands of family members of petitioner, situated in S.No.170/1, 172, the objection of the petitioner appears to be more personalised rather than public interest. 11. Pursuant to the order of First Bench in W.P.No.16979 of 2009, District Collector has passed the order after due enquiry. The impugned order takes care of the objections/grievances of the petitioner. It was submitted that the proposed Tank would benefit the villagers in many ways and the petitioner cannot halt beneficial scheme meant for the welfare of villagers in general. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.