Madras High Court
P.Raj Mohan vs The District Collector on 6 November, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.31820 of 2024
P.Raj Mohan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ariyalur.
2.The Tahsildar,
Sendurai Taluk,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Maruthaiyaru Vadi Nilai Kottam,
Ariyalur District.
4.The Rural Development Officer,
Town Panchayat office,
Sendurai,
Ariyalur District.
.. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent herein to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2024 within a stipulated
period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Gokulakrishnan
For R1 to R3 .. Mr.V.Nanmaran,
Additional Government Pleader.,
Government Advocate.
For R4 .. Mr.R.V.Dinesh Raj Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamas seeking a
direction against the 4th respondent / the Rural Development Officer, Town
Panchayat Office, Sendurai, Ariyalur District, to consider the representation
given by the petitioner dated 12.09.2024 within a stipulated period.
2.Even before proceeding further, let me make it very clear that, in
view of the facts stated, a time lime can never be fixed for consideration of
the representation of the petitioner herein. That is so because, the petitioner
originally had laid water pipeline since he is the owner of five acres of
agriculture land in 34/3A2 and additional agrarian land in S.No.31/1A in
Sendurai Taluk, Cholan Kudi Kadu, Ariyalur District. It is stated that the
said pipe line was laid on the water body.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.A Public Interest Litigation had been filed in W.P.No.23167 of
2019, K.Kannady Vs. The District Collector, Ariyalur, Ariyalur Distict and
two others, in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction to remove
encroachment in the water course poromboke in S.Nos.194 and 194/1 in
Ariyalur. Reliance was placed on an earlier judgment of the Court dated
30.10.2015 in W.P.No.1294 of 2009. The Division Bench which examined
the Public Interest Litigation had opined as follows:
“3.The learned State Government Pleader submits that
the authority would conduct a survey within a period of three
months and if any encroachment is found in the subject writ
land, then steps would be undertaken in accordance with law
expeditiously.
In view of the said statement, the writ petition is
disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4.After that particular order was passed, it is complained by the writ
petitioner that his pipe lines were broken not because the pipe line of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner was on the water body, but the neighbours' land was on the water
body and the pipeline therein was removed and as a vengeance, the pipe line
of the petitioner was broken. These are facts which can be examined only by
the 4th respondent.
5.The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent stated that
consideration of the representation cannot be done within a stipulated
period of time since, the 4th respondent will have to pass a resolution and
take a decision whether the pipe line of the petitioner could be laid after
digging the road and therefore, larger interests are involved. It is for that
reason I had stated that it would not be able to give a time line for
consideration of the representation.
6.But, at any rate, the 4th respondent may take it up as an agenda
whenever they convene a meeting and consider the representation of the
petitioner and take an appropriate decision. Let them take into consideration
the fact that a public road cannot be broken for laying of a pipe line of one
single individual and at the same time, balance that with the requirement of
a pipeline for agriculture purpose of the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.It is also stated that the petitioner would bear the costs, if the 4th
respondent comes to an affirmative decision. I leave that aspect to the
discretion of the 4th respondent.
8.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
06.11.2024
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
smv
To
1.The District Collector,
Ariyalur.
2.The Tahsildar,
Sendurai Taluk,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Maruthaiyaru Vadi Nilai Kottam,
Ariyalur District.
4.The Rural Development Officer,
Town Panchayat office,
Sendurai,
Ariyalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
