Madras High Court
K.Rajamanickam vs The District Collector on 14 October, 2022
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 14.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
1.K.Rajamanickam
2.K.Sasikumar
3.K.Raja . . . Petitioners
Vs
1.The District Collector
Thiruvannamalai District
Thiruvannamalai
2.The Tahsildhar
Thandarampet Taluk
3.The Village Administrative Officer
Veeranam Village, Thandarampet Taluk
Tiruvannamalai District
4.The General Manager
Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited
TWAD House, No.31, Kamaraj Salai
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
5.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited
TWAD House, No.31, Kamaraj Salai
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005 . . . Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents,
particularly the respondents 4 and 5 to compensate to the tune of
Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for illegal excavation of granite
stones to an extent of 0.20 cents and also using petitioners' land as a
pathway illegally to the extent of 0.10 cents in the land i.e. a portion of
property, comprised in Survey No.126/2, situated at Veeranam Village,
Thandarampet Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District on the basis of 1st
petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2017.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Thanjan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, Addl. Govt. Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mrs.A.Srijayanthi for R4 & R5
ORDER
Though the writ petition has been camouflaged in the name of
writ of mandamus, the relief itself is for claiming a compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents 4 and 5.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they own land to an extent
of 3.72 Acres in S. No.126/2 in Veeranama Village, Thandarampet
Taluk, whereas, the 5th respondent, who was given a licence for
quarrying in adjacent lands, while quarrying in the adjacent lands, the
fifth respondent has also quarried in the petitioners' land in an extent
of 20 cents, which caused them a loss, to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-.
Therefore, the writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:2/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
3. Though several vague allegations have been made in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the crux of the writ petition
is for the above relief.
4. The first respondent/District Collector has filed a counter
affidavit to the effect that the representation of the petitioners was
considered and the property has been inspected with the independent
body from the Mining Department and found that there was no
quarrying done in the petitioners' property. According to the stand of
the Collector/first respondent, petitioners' property is a virgin property
and no quarrying was done.
5. The fifth respondent has also refuted the contention of the writ
petitioners and taken a stand that no quarrying was done in petitioners'
property.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that this court has earlier appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to
inspect the property and the Commissioner has also filed a report. The
report indicates that the petitioners' property was quarried and it is
according to him, the Commissioner's Report would show that the earth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:3/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
mover was used to dig the land and the Commissioner had found
broken stones in the property. Therefore, it is clear that quarrying
operation was also done in petitioners property by the fifth respondent.
It is his submission that the photographs filed in the writ petition shows
that there were quarrying operation in the petitioners' property.
7. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 to 3 would vehemently contend that there are
disputed facts and that the fifth respondent has taken a specific stand
that there are no quarrying operation done in petitioners' property and
that the writ petition itself is in the nature of mandamus claiming a
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, all the pleadings have to be proved
before the concerned civil court and the writ court cannot go into the
disputed facts.
8. It is his further contention that the very counter of the first
respondent itself clearly indicates that experts from the Mining
Department have inspected the property and found that there are no
quarrying activities done in the petitioners property and hence his
contention is that the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his
submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others reported in (2019) 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:4/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
SCC 329.
9. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the materials
available on record.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 that the writ petition has been
filed as a civil suit for claiming compensation. The respondents have
disputed the allegation of the petitioners that their lands also quarried
by the 5th respondent. It is admitted fact that the 5th respondent was
given a quarry permit in Survey Nos.74 (part), 126/1A, 127, 132
(part), 144/1,2, 145/2 of Veeranam Village and whereas the petitioners
land is in different survey, namely S. No.126/2. When the petitioners
allegations are seriously disputed, this court is of the view that merely
on the basis of the report of the Commissioner it cannot arrive at a
compensation. Since the Commissioner's report is always subject to
proof and also can be can be challenged by either of the parties, when
objections and challenges are made to the Commissioner's Report, the
Report has to be tested and evidence has to be let in by the
Commissioner. Therefore, merely on the basis of the report, writ court
cannot arrive at a definite conclusion that there was quarrying activity
took place in petitioners' land and what was the nature of the area,
how much stones were broken, or whether minerals have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:5/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
removed, are all matter of evidence, it has to be pleaded and proved
before the civil court and not before the writ court by just filing an
affidavit to claim such a huge compensation.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Roshina T. vs. Abdul
Azeez K.T. and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 329, in paragraph
Nos.13 and 14 has held as follows:
"13. These questions, in our view, were pure questions of fact
and could be answered one way or the other only by the civil court in a
properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced
by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution by the High Court.
14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit
is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to
property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of
some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In
such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to
the authority concerned. It is held that High Court cannot allow its
constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which
remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This
court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies
by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person.
The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and
extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere
asking by the litigant."
12. Considering the above judgment and the issue involved in the
writ petition is purely a disputed question of fact, the same has to be
agitated only before the competent civil court and even in the event of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:6/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
claiming damages, the burden lies on the petitioners to establish it.
Normally, if a party claims damages, the onus is heavily on the party
seeking damages and it requires proper pleadings and proof. In such
view of the matter, this court is of the view that the writ petition is
certainly not maintainable. In such view of the matter, the writ
petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
13. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the writ petition was filed in the year
2017 and the petitioners are poor from the rural background,
therefore, the periods spent in the writ petition may be excluded for
working out their remedy before the appropriate civil court. Considering
the nature of the relief sought by the petitioners and also they are from
the rural background, the periods spent in this writ petition, may be
excluded as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while filing a suit, as
the petitioners were pursuing their remedy bonafidely before this court.
If advised, the writ petitioners may file a suit within a period of four
months from today, before the concerned civil court.
14.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
Asr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:7/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
To
1.The District Collector
Thiruvannamalai District
Thiruvannamalai
2.The Tahsildhar
Thandarampet Taluk
3.The Village Administrative Officer
Veeranam Village, Thandarampet Taluk
Tiruvannamalai District
4.The General Manager
Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited
TWAD House, No.31, Kamaraj Salai
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
5.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited
TWAD House, No.31, Kamaraj Salai
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
6.The Government Pleader
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:8/9
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Asr
W.P. No.10360 of 2017
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:9/9
