Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs P.Subramanian on 23 September, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.1342 of 2019
and
CM.P(MD)No.11289 of 2019
1.The Executive Officer,
Thisaiyanvilai Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Thisaiyanvilai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Special Officer,
Assistant Director for Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Thisaiyanvilai Special Grade Town panchayat (in-charge),
Assistant Director Office,
NGO Colony,
Tirunelveli. ... Appellants/ Respondents
Vs.
P.Subramanian ... Respondent /Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.7205 of 2019
dated 29.04.2019.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Appellants : Mr.Aayiram K Selvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.C.Mailvahana Rajendran
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.7205 of 2019 dated 29.04.2019.
2. The respondent filed a writ petition before the writ Court to issue
a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to pass an appropriate order to
fix the lease amount and permit the respondent herein to put up a temporary
structure in the allotted place.
3. Based on the resolution passed by the first respondent, by
considering the representation made by the respondent dated 09.03.2019, the said
writ petition was allowed by order dated 29.04.2019 by the writ Court. Aggrieved
over the same, the respondents therein filed the present intra Court writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. In compliance of the order of this Court, the representation of the
respondent was placed before the Town Panchayat Council meeting conducted on
14.02.2018 and it was resolved to take appropriate steps by following the
procedure, after obtaining the ground rent rate through Public Works Department
and then to take further steps towards the allocation of the vacant land to the
respondent herein. Based on that resolution, a proposal was sent to the Public
Works Department (Building and Maintenance) on 26.09.2018, for getting
opinion for letting out the disputed vacant land for lease. But the Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department, vide his communication dated 25.01.2019,
declined to grant permission for letting out the vacant place for lease purpose
since it is classified as a Government Poramboke land. The same was
communicated to the respondent that the vacant land in question is lying before
the Agriculture Department 'go-down' and it is also a Government Poramboke
land, permission is declined. They also expressed their inability to give the lease
of the land situated in S.No.17/1B/2A/1C in view of the increased thick
population and public usage of the said place, viz., parking of car and taxi. There
are a lot of traffic problem arising in the recent days and it causes several
inconvenience to the public. Further, the agricultural department also requested
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Tahsildar, Radhapuram to re-survey the land allocated for the usage of their
Department and earmark the land so as to protect the land from any future
encroachment. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the submissions made
by the appellants as well as the subsequent development while passing the order.
Therefore, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that despite
the second appellant passed the resolution as early as on 14.02.2018, by
permitting the respondent to put up a temporary superstructure in the land
measuring 16x16 sq.ft., in S.No.17/1B/1A/2C, Ward No.9, Thisayanvilai Special
Grade Town Panchayat as per the resolution No.123, the appellants refused to
grant permission to put up the superstructure and they did not fix any rent. Hence,
the respondent approached this Court. Further, he would submit that there are
similarly placed persons, who have been allowed to put up the superstructure in
the very same Survey number by fixing the ground rent and also the same has
been collected from them. Though the respondent also put up the superstructure,
however, the same was demolished. Therefore, the respondent approached this
Court on earlier occasions. As per the order of the Court, the second appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed the resolution and they have not acted upon the resolution passed by them.
Hence, the writ Court rightly appreciated the submissions and contentions of both
the appellants as well as the respondent, and also considering the counter
affidavit filed by the appellants, passed an order by allowing the writ petition on
its own merits.
6. It is admitted that the subject land is classified as a Government
Poramboke and also based on the order of this Court in earlier round of
litigations, in which this Court directed the appellants to allot the disputed land
for put up a temporary superstructure and fix the rent, based on which the second
appellant also passed the resolution on 14.02.2018. It was resolved to take
appropriate steps towards the allocation of vacant land to the respondent by
following the procedures and after obtaining the ground rent rate from the Public
Works Department. Now the main contention of the appellants is that the proposal
was forwarded to the Public Works Department (Building and Maintenance) on
26.09.2018. But the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, had declined
to grant permission for letting out the vacant place for lease purpose since it is
classified as Government Poramboke land. Taking note of the same, in the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
round of litigations, this Court has directed the appellants to fix the lease rent and
permit the respondent to put up the temporary superstructure in the disputed
vacant land.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that there are a
vast land and more than 160 persons have occupied and they were allowed to put
up a temporary superstructure and the authorities also fixed the rent and has been
collecting the same from the tenants. Therefore, the contention of the appellants
that since the land has been classified as a Government Poramboke, the Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department, has refused to grant permission for letting
out the vacant land and also fixing the rent, is not acceptable, since the similarly
placed persons were getting the said benefit. Therefore, the reasons stated for not
considering the representation of the respondent dated 09.03.2019 is not
acceptable and therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ Court has rightly
passed the order by allowing the writ petition and there is no merit in this appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and it is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
[P.V.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.]
23.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PJL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
PJL
23.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
