Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3971 (MAD)

R. Balakrishnan v. District Collector, Dindigul

2017-11-22

R.SUBBIAH

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2827/2009/A6 dated 03.06.2009 and consequently forbearing the respondents from reclassifying the Survey No. 814 of the Alambadi Panchayat Dindigul District from Mayanam (Burial Ground) as per the resolution of the fourth respondent dated 26.01.2008. 2. The petitioner is a native of the 4th respondent Village Panchayat. In the fourth respondent Village Panchayat, a burial ground is situated at S.No.814 of Alambadi Village, Kujiliamparai, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. In the said village, more than 100 families with 700 members are living and they are using the above said burial ground from time immemorial and it is a common burial ground for all people in the village. While so, the 2nd respondent sanctioned fund to convert the burial ground into threshing floor with a proposal to reclassify the existing burial ground. Therefore, the petitioner and others made a representation to the 1st respondent on 12.01.2009 requesting the first respondent to stop the proposed work and preserve the burial ground in the said survey number. On receipt of the said representation, the first respondent orally advised the 2nd respondent to stop the proposed work and thereby the proposed work has been stopped. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Contractor visited the said land and in spite of the oral direction of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent again granted permission to convert the burial ground into threshing floor and thereby the Contractor tried to put up construction in the common burial ground by demolishing the existing burial ground. The act of the 2nd respondent in giving permission to demolish the burial ground is against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, one of the representative of the village, namely, Mr. Sethuraj earlier filed W.P.(MD) No.4036 of 2009 before this Court as a Public Interest Litigation directing the first respondent to consider the representation and forbear the respondents from constructing any structure in the said survey number. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the first respondent cancelled the resolution No.97 of the 4th respondent Panchayat under Section 202 of the Act without issuing any notice either to the Village Panchayat President or to any representative of the village people. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the first respondent cancelled the resolution No.97 of the 4th respondent Panchayat under Section 202 of the Act without issuing any notice either to the Village Panchayat President or to any representative of the village people. The said resolution was passed by the Panchayat only in order to safeguard the interest of the village, since the burial ground existed in S.No. 814 from time immemorial. However, the first respondent cancelled the said resolution and against the power empowered under Section 202 of the Act. Against the order of the first respondent dated 03.06.2009, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the 2nd respondent has cancelled the resolution as per Section 202(1)(c) of the Act, for which, no notice is required. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provision under Section 202 of the Act: “202. Power to suspend or cancel resolution, etc. under the Act.- (1) The Inspector may, by order in writing- (i) suspend or cancel any resolution passed, order issued, or licence or permission granted, or (ii) prohibit the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done, in pursuance or under colour of this Act, if in his opinion,- (a) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act has not been legally passed, issued, granted or authorised, or (b) such resolution, order, licence, permission or act is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or an abuse of such powers or is considered by the Inspector to be otherwise undesirable, or (c) the execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licence or permission or the doing of such act is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or is likely to lead to a riot or an affray; Provided that nothing in this subsection shall enable the Inspector to set aside any election which has been held. (2) The Inspector shall, before taking action on any of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), give the authority or person concerned an opportunity for explanation. (2) The Inspector shall, before taking action on any of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), give the authority or person concerned an opportunity for explanation. (3) The power conferred on the Inspector under clause (c) of sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of that clause. 5. On a reading of the same, before taking any action on any of the ground in Clause a and b, sub section (1), an opportunity of explanation has to be given to the concerned person. However, exercising the power conferred on the Inspector under Clause (c) of Sub Section (1), no notice is necessary, which is evident from Section 202(3) of the Act. Section 202(1) (c) of the Act speaks about an execution of such resolution or order, or the continuance in force of such licence or permission or the doing of such act is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or is likely to lead to a riot or an affray, as per Section 202(3), the Inspector of Panchayats can exercise the power to cancel the resolution without issuing notice. 6. In the instant case, since the request of the petitioner to stop the conversion of the burial ground (Mayanam) into threshing floor is rejected, whereas cancellation has been passed as per Section 202(1)(c) of the Act, for which, absolutely, no notice is necessary. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.