Madras High Court
C.Saravanan vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 14 February, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 23.07.2024
Pronounced on : 14 .02.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020,
3242 of 2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022,
9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1506, 1507 and 5392 of 2024,
14090, 14495 and 15160 of 2020, 2575, 2576 and 2578 of 2021,
7005 and 14847 of 2022, 8719 and 8252 of 2023,
6821, 6823, 2293, 3907 and 3908 of 2024,
C.M.P.(MD).No.9997 of 2023
and Sub.A.(MD).No.151 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.1470 of 2024
C.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department,
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam,
1/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
4. The Directorate of Municipal Administration
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
5. The District Collector
Karur, Karur District.
6. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur, Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.1470 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to call
for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.550, dated 09.11.2023
issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.
W.P.(MD).No.4017 of 2024
S.Thangavelraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department,
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
4. The Directorate of Municipal Administration
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
5. The District Collector
Karur, Karur District.
6. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur, Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.4017 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to call
for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.550, dated 09.11.2023
issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.
W.P.(MD).No.16859 of 2020
R.Periyasamy ... Petitioner
3/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Ezhilagam, Anna Building,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3. The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur.
4. The Commissioner
Karur Municipality,
Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.16859 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus
forbearing the respondents from establishing a bus stand in S.No.263 to 265
at Thoranakalpatti village, Karur District in defiance of G.O.Ms.No.87 of
2013 issued by the first respondent dated 20.06.2013.
W.P.(MD).No.18160 of 2020
MRK. Shiva ... Petitioner
Vs.
4/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
1. The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
3. The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur.
4. The Commissioner
Karur Municipality,
Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.18160 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents No. 3 and 4 to construct the new bus stand in the
donated lands in Survey Nos. 95 Part, 97 Part, 98 Part, 113 Part, 114 Part,
115 Part, 116 Part, 117 Part, 118 Part, 150 Part, 151 Part, 152 Part, 243 Part,
246 Part, 247 Part, 248 Part to an extent of 12.14 acres in Thirumanilaiyur
Village, Karur District as per the G.O.Ms.No.87, Municipal Administration
and Water Supply (NaNe.4) Department, dated 20.06.2013 and the orders of
this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(MD)No.3449 of 2017 dated 28.02.2017 and
Review Application (MD) No.26 of 2017 and W.M.P. (MD).No.8254 of 20
dated 03.01.2019.
5/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.3242 of 2021
R.Periasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Transport Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH2) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
3. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
4. The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur.
5. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Kumbakonam Ltd.,
No.27, Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
6. The Commissioner
6/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Karur Municipality,
Karur.
7. The Assistant Director
District Town and Planning Office,
Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.3242 of 2021 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling
for the records pertaining to the Impugned communication by the 4th
respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.Aal/27071/2010 dated
31.12.2020 and the Impugned Government order vide G.O.(Ms).No.16,
dated 03.02.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential tender
notification in Tender Notice No.2/2021-2022 dated 29.01.2021 issued the
fifth respondent and quash the same.
W.P.(MD).No.9786 of 2022
P.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government
Transport Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
3. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner
Rehabilitation and Welfare for Non-resident Tamils,
7/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Ezhilagam,
Chennai - 5.
4. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Dept of Municipal Administration & Water Supply,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
5. The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur.
6. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Kumbakonam Ltd.,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
7. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur, Karur District.
8. The Block Development Officer (Panchayat)
Thanthoni Panchayat Union,
Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.9786 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to construct the Additional Mofussil bus stand at
Government Poramboke land in S.No. 263. 264,265/1 at Thoranakkalpatt
village, karur District in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 29.01.2021
within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.
8/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.20509 of 2022
C.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration,
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
3. The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur.
4. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur
Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.20509 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents to construct the Karur New Bur stand at
Thoranakkalpatti land or some other suitable place at karur except tha land
in S.Nos.95 Part, 97 Part, 98 Part, 113 Part, 114 Part, 115 Part, 116 Part,
117 Part, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 Part, 146 Part, 147 Part, 148 Part,
149, 150 Part, 151 Part, 152 Part, 243 Part, 246 Part, 247 Part, 248 Part
which is situated at Thirumanilaiyur revenue village, Karur, Karur District.
9/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
W.P.(MD).No.9887 of 2023
Karur Municipal Corporation
Rep. by its Commissioner,
(Wrongly mentioned as Karur Municipality
by the applicant before the NGT)
Municipal Office,
Azad Road, Karur - 639 001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Thangavelraj
2. Union of India
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
3. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Environment and Forests,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
4. Department of Municipal Administration
Urban and Water Supply,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
5. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
100, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
6. The District Environmental Engineer
Karur No.26,
10/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Ramakrishnapuram West,
Karur - 639 001.
7. The District Collector
Thanthonimalai,
Karur. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.9887 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call
for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in O.A.No.132 of
2022 (SZ), dated 23.03.2023 passed by the National Green Tribunal,
Southern Zone, Chennai and to quash the same.
W.P.(MD).No.9132 of 2023
C.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director of Municipal Administration
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
11/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
4. The District Collector
Karur,
Karur District.
5. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur, Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.9132 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus
forbearing the fifth respondent from effecting any construction /
development in the land in Survey Nos. 95 Part, 97 Part, 98 Part, 113 Part,
114 Part, 115 Part, 116 Part, 117 Part, 118 Part, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123
Part, 146 Part, 147 Part, 148 Part, 149, 150 Part, 151 Part, 152 Part, 243
Part, 246 Part, 247 Part, 248, Thirumanilaiyur revenue village, Karur, Karur
District, destroying the field bothies therein and consequently direct the
respondents to remove the illegal construction / development made in the
said land and restore the field bothies within the time that may be stipulated
by this Court.
W.P.(MD).No.7408 of 2024
C.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development,
12/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Directorate of Municipal Administration,
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
4. The Director
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Department,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5. The District Collector
Karur District,
Karur.
6. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur, Karur District.
7. The President
Karuppampalayam Village Panchayat,
Karur, Karur District ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.7408 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call
for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 17.07.2014
issued by the second respondent and quash the same.
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023
S.Thangavelraj ... Appellant
Vs.
13/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
1. The Additional Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration,
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
3. The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department,
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4. The District Collector
Karur,
Karur District.
5. The District Revenue Officer
District Collector Office,
Karur District.
6. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15
of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 20.06.2023 made in W.P.
(MD).No.14444 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
Cont.P.(MD).No.13521 of 2020
P.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
14/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
1. Mr.Harmender Singh, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. Mr.K.Baskaran
Commissioner,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Ezhilagam,
Anna Building,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. Mrs.K.M.Sudha
Commissioner,
Karur Municipality,
Karur ... Respondents
Prayer in Cont.P.(MD).No.13521 of 2020 : Contempt Petition filed under
Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish upon the contemnors
for their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.
(MD).No.3449 of 2017, dated 28.02.2017 and Cont.P.(MD).No.345 of 2018
dated 11.01.2019 and punish them according to law.
Case No. For Petitioner(s) / For Respondent(s)
Appellant(s)
W.P.(MD).No.1470 Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG
of 2024 Senior Counsel, assisted by
for Mr.M.Mahaboob Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Govt.
Athiff Pleader for R1 to R5
Mr.P.S.Raman, AG assisted
by Mr.K.Balasubramani
Standing counsel for R6
15/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Case No. For Petitioner(s) / For Respondent(s)
Appellant(s)
W.P.(MD).No.4017 Mr.V.Raghavachari, Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG
of 2024 Senior Counsel assisted by
assisted by Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R1
Mr.A.G.Vedavikas to R5
for Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
Mr.C.B.Naveen Chandran assisted by
Mr.K.Balasubramani for R6
W.P.(MD).No.16859 Mr.M.Suresh Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
of 2020 assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R1
to R3
and
Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R4
W.P.(MD).No.18160 Mr.T.Dhanasekar Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
of 2020 assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP
for R1 to R3
Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG-IX
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R4
W.P.(MD).No.3242 Mr. M.Suresh Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
of 2021 assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R1
to R4 and R7
Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
for
Mr.K.Balasubramani for R6
Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
for
Mr.D.Sivaraman for R5
16/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Case No. For Petitioner(s) / For Respondent(s)
Appellant(s)
W.P.(MD).No.9786 Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
of 2022 for Mr.N.Rajasekar assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R1
to R5
Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
for Mr.D.Sivaraman for R6
Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R7
Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, AAG-III
for Mr.A.Sivanupandian for R8
W.P.(MD).No.20509 Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
of 2022 Senior Counsel, assisted by
for Mr.P.E.Pandiarajan Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP
for R1 to R3
Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Senior
Counsel
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R4
W.P.(MD).No.9887 Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior
of 2023 Counsel Counsel
for Mr.K.Balasubramani assisted by Mr.A.G.Vedavikas
for Mr.C.B.Naveen Chandran
for R1
Mr.K.Govindarajan, DSGI for
R2
Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP
for R3, R4 and R7
Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan
for R5 and R6
17/109
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Case No. For Petitioner(s) / For Respondent(s)
Appellant(s)
W.P.(MD).No.9132 Mr.M.Sricharan Mr.K.Govindarajan, DSGI for
of 2023 Rangarajan, Senior R1
Counsel Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
for Mr.Mahaboob Athiff assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R2
to R4
Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R5
W.P.(MD).No.7408 Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
of 2024 Senior Counsel assisted by
assisted by Mr.P.Prakash Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R1
for Mr.S.Pandiaraj to R5
Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R6
W.A.(MD).No.1325 Mr.V.Raghavachari, Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
of 2023 Senior Counsel assisted by
assisted by Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP for R1
Mr.A.G.Vedavikas to R5
for Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar for Mr.K.Balasubramani,
Standing Counsel for R6
Cont.P.(MD).No. Mr.A.N.Ramanathan Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
1352 of 2020 assisted by
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, GP
for R1 and R2
Mr.P.S.Raman, AG
for Mr.K.Balasubramani for R3
COMMON ORDER
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions as well as the writ
appeal and contempt petition is one and the same, all these cases were heard
together and are disposed by this common order.
2. The factual matrix which revolves in all these cases can be divided
into two parts. Part-I starts from the year 2006 and ends with the dismissal
of batch of writ petitions by a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated
28.04.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.1881 of 2013 etc., batch. Part-II starts
thereafter and ends at filing of all these cases.
3. The necessary facts in Part-I which are the very basic facts are first
traversed hereunder in nutshell :
3.1. That the Karur Municipality, which has subsequently been
developed as a Municipal Corporation, was, during the early 2000, a busy
developing Municipal Town in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is one of the
industrial town of various activities mainly on the manufacture and export
of garments. It has a central bus stand which has been established long years
ago. Since the parking facility of the said central bus stand of karur town
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
was having the capacity of only 50 odd buses, there had been a consistent
demand from all walks of life to expand the bus stand or to construct a new
bus stand. In this context though some steps had been taken by the
municipality to develop the bus stand, that had not yielded any desired
result. Therefore the Karur Municipality had decided to explore the
possibility of construction of an integrated new bus stand to cater the needs
of all walks of life who comes to and go from the karur town.
3.2. In this regard, the District Collector of Karur had sent a proposal,
dated 28.01.2006 that, lands available in three places namely Sanappiratti
village, Attur village and Thoranakalpatti village were examined and a total
extent of 8.10 acres of land at Thoranakalpatti village in Thanthoni-III
Grade municipality offered by the villagers free of cost for the construction
of the bus stand would be suitable.
3.3. The said recommendation of the District Collector was rejected
by the Karur Municipality Council by Resolution No.32, dated 31.01.2006.
Therefore at the instance of the Government, the Municipal Commissioner
of Karur had been in searching of a suitable alternative place. Therefore he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
had sent a communication to the Project Director of the National Highways
Authority of India on 27.01.2009 with a request to send the road map for the
National Highways, that was coming up in Trichy - Coimbatore bye pass
road passing through the Thanthoni revenue village as well as the
Thoranakalpatti revenue village.
3.4. In the meantime, the Councillors of the Municipality had brought
two independent private resolutions to be adopted by the Municipal Council
Meeting held on 29.01.2009. According to which, the ward councillor one
by name R.Prabhu brought a resolution regarding the location for the
proposed bus stand to an extent of 17 acres of land situated at Sukkaliyoor
village which is a Government poramboke land. The other proposal was
brought in by one N.Maniraj, the Councillor, according to him, the location
of the bus stand can be fixed in a land belonging to the temple called Sri
Bala Thandayuthapani Temple in Thanimalai, Attur village.
3.5. The Municipal Council in its meeting dated 29.01.2009 has
accepted the resolution brought in by R.Prabhu by rejecting the resolution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
brought in by N.Maniraj.
3.6. Therefore as per the resolution passed by the Municipal Council
the land at Sukkaliyoor village comes under Thoranakalpatti revenue village
was accepted by the Municipal Council initially.
3.7. Thereafter the RDO, Karur addressed the District Collector
recommending the reclassification of the land from Manthaiveli Poramboke,
that is waste land meant for gracing for the purpose of the proposed location
of the new bus stand.
3.8. Thereafter some letter correspondences, with regard to the in-
between lands belongs to the private parties to be sorted, out had been
exchanged between the RDO and the Commissioner of Municipality. While
the said proposal was pending, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.19,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 14.11.2011
extending the local limits of Karur Municipality which includes the
Thanthoni municipality and other areas. In view of this new development,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
the District Collector, Karur again sent a letter to the Commissioner of
Municipal Administration as well as the Government seeking a fresh
approval for the location of the new bus stand at Thoranakalpatti revenue
village in the Government poramboke lands and a reclassification of the
said land also was sought for by the District Collector by a subsequent
letter.
3.9. Thereafter a fresh resolution was sought to be passed by the letter
of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, dated 22.12.2011 by the
Karur Municipality in view of the municipality's area since has been
expanded. Therefore the subject was placed before the Municipal Council in
its meeting held on 10.10.2012, however, by Resolution No.797, the
Municipal Council rejected the proposal on the ground that, the land
proposed for construction of the bus stand since is 10 kms away from the
main town and therefore, the Municipality decided to invite fresh offers
from the land owners for donating the land free of cost at any other suitable
place.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
3.10. In view of the latest resolutions of the municipality
advertisements were issued in prominent newspapers on 12.10.2012 inviting
interested parties to donate land for the location of the bus stand.
3.11. This stand of the Municipality was objected by a section of the
people, therefore they made an objection to the Chief Secretary on
29.10.2012. However, in response to the paper advertisement given by the
Municipality, two persons namely M.Nachimuthu and N.Senthil Prasath
residing at Karur made offer on 07.11.2012 for donating the land to an
extent of about 12.14 acres in a village called Thirumanilaiyur for the
proposed new bus stand to be located.
3.12. Considering the said offer made by the two individuals to
donate their lands at Thirumanilaiyur village, a committee consisting of
various authorities in its meeting dated 27.12.2012 decided to accept the
offer made by the two individuals favourably.
3.13. Therefore the subject was placed before the Municipal Council
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Meeting held on 28.12.2012, where by Resolution No.1079, the Municipal
Council decided to accept the offer made by the said M.Nachimuthu and
N.Senthil Prasath. Infact the said resolution, dated 28.12.2012 was carried
by a majority of 47 out of 48 members present.
3.14. The said resolution was communicated by the Commissioner of
Municipality to the Commissioner of Municipal Administration who in turn
issued a publication in the newspapers on 07.11.2013 containing Request
For Proposal (RFP) for invitation of consulting services for appointment of
a Consultant for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for
establishment of integrated bus stand for Karur Municipality.
3.15. However the said RFP, dated 07.11.2013 issued by the
Commissioner of Municipal Administration was put under challenge by one
R.Ekambaram, who is also one of the Councillor of the Karur Municipality,
in a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.18881 of 2013. In fact, the said writ
petition came up for admission before a Division Bench on 25.11.2013,
where only the RFP was under challenge seeking for a writ of certiorari to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
quash the same.
3.16. Even before filing the said writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.18881
of 2013, the Municipality passed yet another resolution on 23.05.2013
seeking an approval from the Government in terms of Section 152 of the
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
3.17. Pursuant to the said request made by the Municipal
Commissioner on the basis of the resolution of the Municipal Corporation,
dated 23.05.2013, the Government had also issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.
87, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated
20.06.2013 granting approval under Section 152 of the Act for the Karur
Municipality to undertake the work of integrated bus stand at the place
accepted by the Municipal Council, i.e., at Thirumanilaiyur.
3.18. The very same writ petitioner, i.e., Municipal Councillor
R.Ekambaram once again had approached the Court by filing W.P.
(MD).No.14749 of 2013 challenging the said Government Order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 20.06.2013. Thereafter three more writ petitions came
to be filed in W.P.(MD).Nos.536, 2746 and 5774 of 2014 challenging the
very same Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.87, Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department, dated 20.06.2013.
3.19. All these five writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of
this Court and ultimately passed orders on 28.04.2014. The Division Bench
in the said Judgment has exhaustively discussed the issue, contention after
contention made on behalf of the writ petitioners and has ultimately
concluded that all the five writ petitions are deserved to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed. However, insofar as the writ petition filed by the
erstwhile Municipal Councillor Ekambaram, it was dismissed with cost of
Rs.20,000/- to be payable by him to the Karur Municipal Corporation.
3.20. The said order, dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Division Bench
in the matter of R.Ekambaram v. Government of Tamil Nadu was taken on
appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.20706 and 20707 of
2014 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, dated 19.08.2014. Therefore the G.O.Ms.No.87 issued by
the State Government giving such permission under Section 152 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
District Municipalities Act permitting the Karur Municipality to go ahead
with the construction of the new Integrated central bus stand at the proposed
place of land to the extent of more than 12 acres donated by two individuals
accepted by the Municipal Council at Thirumalinayur has been upheld and
the issue has come to an end by upholding the said G.O., by the Judgment of
the Division Bench dated 28.04.2014. As against which, the S.L.P filed by
the writ petitioner Ekambaram was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as withdrawn by order, dated 19.08.2014. This is the Part-I of the factual
matrix of this case.
3.21. After the dismissal of those writ petitions by the order of the
Division Bench dated 28.04.2014, the issue was not stopped there at and it
continued for further long way which is the factual matrix in Part-II.
3.22. Subsequently, by various proceedings of the concerned
authorities, including the District Collector, Karur, dated 06.07.2015, the
land which was originally identified at Thoranakalpatti revenue village for
the proposed central bus stand of Karur Municipality had been allotted for
the construction of a refugee camp. In the meanwhile one P.Saravanan had
filed a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the Government as well as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
the Karur Municipality to consider his representation dated 10.02.2017 to
establish a new central bus stand at Karur by implementing the Government
Order vide G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 20.06.2013.
3.23. A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 28.02.2017
disposed the said writ petition filed by P.Saravanan in W.P.(MD).No.3449
of 2017 by allowing the said writ petition, giving a direction to the
respondents therein, i.e., the State Government as well as the Karur
Municipality to establish a new bus stand in karur town in pursuance of
G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 20.06.2013 within a period of two months.
3.24. Since the said order passed in W.P.(MD).No.3449 of 2017
issuing a mandamus to implement the G.O.Ms.No.87 was not complied
with, the said Saravanan moved a Contempt Petition before this Court in
Cont.P.No.345 of 2018 wherein a status report has been filed by the
Commissioner, Karur Municipality and time and again the said contempt
petition has been taken up for hearing, where some directions had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
issued to file status report and to spell out the stand of the municipality as to
why such a proposal to construct a bus stand despite the G.O having been
issued was pending and gets delayed.
3.25. In the meanwhile a Review Application in Rev.Appl (MD).No.
26 of 2017 was also filed by the State Government and the Karur
Municipality as well as the District Collector seeking to review the order of
the Division Bench dated 28.02.2017 made in W.P.(MD).No.3449 of 2017.
That Review Application also was heard and dismissed by a Division Bench
of this Court, by order, dated 03.01.2019. Therefore the order passed by the
Division Bench dated 28.02.2017 in W.P.(MD).No.3449 of 2017 has
become final, therefore the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.345 of 2018
filed by the said P.Saravanan was persuaded further, where status reports
and affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State Government and
ultimately the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department had filed an affidavit on 08.01.2019 as to the
steps taken by the Government in this regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
3.26. Again an affidavit was filed on 09.01.2019 and Karur
Municipality Commissioner also filed an additional affidavit on 09.01.2019
in the said Contempt Petition (MD).No.345 of 2018.
3.27. On 09.01.2019, the Division Bench in the said contempt
petition in Cont.P.(MD).No. 345 of 2018 had given only two days time, to
make the report with regard to compliance, to the Government and
ultimately on 11.01.2019, the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department has filed an affidavit, where
he has given a time schedule to complete the task of construction of the bus
stand pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.87, according to whom, 18+6 months had
been sought for, i.e., 2 years totally sought for to complete the project of
new central bus stand for Karur Municipality at Thirumanilaiyur revenue
village in the lands donated by the two individuals.
3.28. Recording the said stand taken by the Government as well as the
Municipality, the Division Bench by its final order, dated 11.01.2019 closed
the said Cont.P.(MD).No.345 of 2018 by recording the affidavit stating that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, dated
11.01.2019 clearly shows that the Government have taken a decision to
establish a bus stand as indicated in the order in G.O.Ms.No.87, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 20.06.2013. Therefore
the court was informed by the Special Government Pleader that the period
of two years for completion of construction would commence that day itself.
By recording the said stand of the Government of Tamil Nadu as well as the
Municipality, the said contempt petition was closed by the order of the
Division Bench, dated 11.01.2019.
3.29. Thereafter the Government has come forward to issue a G.O in
G.O.Ms.No.65, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
dated 27.05.2019, whereby the Government has directed the Karur
Municipality to go ahead with the construction of the bus stand at the cost
of Rs.47 Crores which the Municipality can take as a loan under the public
private partnership mode from the Tamil Nadu Infrastructure Development
Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
3.30. In the meanwhile the said Nachimuthu and Senthil Prasath
along with three others filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.22551 of 2019
seeking for a writ of mandamus to reconvey the lands donated by them to
the Government for construction of bus stand for Karur Municipality as the
project has not been still started of.
3.31. Thereafter on 16.11.2010, the District Collector has given enter
upon permission for construction of refugee camp at Thoranakalpatti
village. The Government thereafter has come forward to issue G.O.Ms.No.
15, Transport Department, dated 29.01.2021 permitting the Karur
Municipality to construct an additional mofussil bus stand by accepting the
proposal of the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Sate Transport
Corporation, Kumbakonam Limited, thereby accorded necessary permission
to float the tender and to proceed further with the construction of the
additional mofussil bus stand with buildings for commercial complex at
S.No.263 etc., at Thoranakalpatti village, karur taluk at a cost not exceeding
Rs.40 Crores with their own funds by availing loan from the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
State Transport Finance Corporation Limited, without seeking any financial
assistance from the Government.
3.32. Therefore first time there is a deviation from the Government,
whereby the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam was
permitted to construct an additional bus stand with commercial complex at
Thoranakalpatti village by securing a loan not more than Rs.40 Crores from
the Tamil Nadu State Transport Finance Corporation Ltd., without seeking
any aid from the Government.
3.33. Subsequently a writ petition has been filed in W.P.(MD).No.
3854 of 2021 by one A.Sambooranathammal seeking for a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents therein to issue suitable directions to
the sixth respondent therein i.e., Karur Municipality and other upstream
land owners to construct or dig, restore and maintain the field bothies in the
lands comprised in S.F.Nos.95 etc., at Thirumanilaiyur village, Karur Taluk,
thereby restore the field bothies, which were in existence and which were
supplying waters of Amaravathi Project through Thirumanilaiyur Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Vaikkal, to irrigate the land of the petitioner and other agricultural lands by
considering her representation, dated 08.01.2021.
3.34. The Government also had come forward to issue yet another
G.O in G.O.Ms.No.16, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH2)
Department dated 03.02.2021, whereby the Government has permitted the
District Collector to alienate the land at Thoranakalpatti village to the Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited for construction of additional
bus stand and issue orders accordingly.
3.35. Thereafter a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.9567 of 2021 filed
by one P.Kumaresan against the State of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department
and Transport Corporation, was disposed by a Division Bench of this Court,
by order, dated 26.05.2021, where a direction was given to the respondents
therein to proceed with the tender process for the construction of additional
moffusil bus stand for Karur town based on the earlier orders passed in this
regard.
3.36. Thereafter the Government has come forward to issue a G.O. in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
G.O.Ms.No.20, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA.IV)
Department, dated 25.01.2022, under which, administrative and financial
sanction had been made allotting funds for construction of bus stands at
various places in the State of Tamil Nadu which includes Karur, for which
Rs.62.50 Crores had been sanctioned by the Government through the said
G.O.(Ms).No.20, dated 25.01.2022.
3.37. Yet another writ petition was filed by the said P.Kumaresan in
W.P.(MD).No.15259 of 2022, where an interim order has been passed by a
Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 18.07.2022, where it has been
observed that, with regard to the land at Thoranakalpatti village, since is a
land belongs to the Government, therefore it is a policy decision of the
Government to put up refugee camp through out the State of Tamil Nadu as
it is obvious that refugees from neighbouring countries are fleeing to India
and they have to be accommodated on humanitarian grounds. When the
Transport Corporation pleaded financial crunch, the Court cannot sit in
judgment over their assessment and direct them to construct additional bus
stand implementing G.O.Ms.Nos.15 and 16. Similarly, the Court also cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
interdict the Government from constructing a refugee camp at the land
belonging to them as it is their policy decision.
3.38. The Court has further held that, however technically speaking
when G.O.Ms.No.15 and 16 are still alive, the construction of a refugee
camp in the same survey numbers may fall foul of the order of the
Governor. Therefore it is always open to the Government to withdraw
G.O.Ms.No.15 and 16 and pass a fresh G.O. for the construction of a
refugee camp in the same survey numbers.
3.39. This was the interim order passed by the Division Bench.
Subsequently, another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.16884 of 2022 filed by
one S.Sathish came up for consideration before the same Division Bench,
where an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents therein,
including the newly impleaded eighth respondent from proceeding with the
further construction has been made. Thereafter on 03.08.2022, the
Commissioner, Karur Municipality had sent a communication to the DRO
stating that, at various survey numbers in Thirumanilaiyur where the
proposed bus stand is going to be located it does not have any field bothies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
and there has been no Raja Vaikal or branch of Raja Vaikal available in that
land.
3.40. Thereafter the Government has come forward to issue
G.O.Ms.No.78, Transport (B.2) Department, dated 06.08.2022 cancelling
the G.O.Ms.No.15, Transport (B.2) Department, dated 29.01.2021, that
means the necessary permission accorded to the Managing Director, Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Limited to float tender
and to proceed further with the construction of additional mofussil bus stand
and commercial buildings at S.No.263 etc., at Thoranakalpatti village has
been withdrawn. Therefore there has been no G.O., in the name of
G.O.Ms.No.15 to give permission to the Managing Director of the Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation to go ahead with the construction of
additional moffusil bus stand at Thoranakalpatti village.
3.41. Thereafter one individual claimed to be an agriculturist namely
S.Thangavelraj by a registered sale deed, dated 23.08.2022 has purchased a
land to an extent of 1.10 acres at Thirumanilaiyur village. On the next day,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
i.e., on 24.08.2022, the said Thangavelraj has given a representation to the
Commissioner of Municipal Administration, District Collector, Karur and
the Karur Municipal Commissioner, raising objection for the establishment
of the new central bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur village, Karur on the ground
that, the irrigation channels, i.e., bothies would get affected, thereby the
water sources for the agricultural land of him and others would get affected
and therefore, he raised objection.
3.42. In the meanwhile, the order passed by the Division Bench, dated
18.07.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.15259 of 2022 giving liberty to the
Government to withdraw the G.O.Ms.No.15 and 16 and to pass a fresh G.O.
for the construction of refugee camp in the said survey numbers at
Thoranakalpatti village was appealed to the Supreme Court by the said
P.Kumaresan by filing Special Leave Petition in S.L.P.(C).No.13064 of
2022, which was withdrawn by him and therefore the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by order, dated 09.09.2022 dismissed the said S.L.P as withdrawn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
3.43. Subsequently on 30.09.2022, the Government has come forward
to issue G.O.Ms.No.113, whereby the G.O.Ms.No.16, Animal Husbandry,
Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare (AH2) Department, dated
03.02.2021 has been cancelled, as by G.O.Ms.No.16, the Government had
issued no objection certificate for alienation of land in S.No.265/1 to an
extent of 2.45 hectares out of the total extent of 3.29 hectares classified as
Mandhaiveli Poramboke at Thoranakalpatti village, Karur District to and in
favour of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam for
construction of additional bus stand.
3.44. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.15 as well as G.O.Ms.No.16 since has
been cancelled or withdrawn by the subsequent G.Os. Thereafter the said
S.Thangavelraj had approached the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone
by filing Original Application in O.A.No.132 of 2022 seeking for a
declaration that the construction of a new bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur
village, Karur District as illegal and unauthorised, therefore a direction was
sought for from the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone to the
respondents 2 to 6 in the said Original Application to stop forthwith the
construction of the bus stand on the grounds that, the lands are agricultural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
land in nature, as they are classified as nanjai besides, there are common
water channels which are sub-channels of Raja Vaikal which bisect the
above said lands which are also marked as common water drainage channel
in the village map.
3.45. The said Original Application in O.A.No.132 of 2022 was
ultimately disposed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone,
Chennai by its order, dated 23.03.2023, whereby the Karur Municipality
was directed to get appropriate approval for change in alignment for the
field bothies as per the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Works (Construction of Field
Bothies) Act, 1959. Till such time, such approval is obtained, the Karur
Municipality was directed to suspend the work in the areas where the field
bothies / channels exist as well as areas where the diversion is proposed. In
fact a cost of Rs.25 lakhs also was awarded in favour of the petitioner
against the Karur Municipality.
3.46. The Karur Municipal Corporation challenging the said order
passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone in O.A.No.132 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
2022 filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.9887 of 2023, where a Division
Bench of this Court, by order dated 25.04.2023 has granted an interim order
of stay of the order of the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, dated
23.03.2023 awarding cost against the Karur Municipal Corporation by
imposing a cost of Rs.25 lakhs.
3.47. W.P.(MD).No.9123 of 2023 was filed by one Saravanan seeking
for a mandamus forbearing the Karur Municipality for effecting any
construction development in the lands at various Survey Numbers in
Thirumanilaiyur Revenue village, Karur and also seeking direction to
remove the illegal construction already been made in those lands. A
Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 28.04.2023 has granted an
interim order of injunction restraining the Karur Municipality from
proceeding with the construction of the bus stand until further orders at
Thirumanilaiyur village.
3.48. As against the order passed by the National Green Tribunal,
Southern Zone, dated 23.03.2023, the said Thangavelraj had filed a SLP,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
which has been converted into Civil Appeal Diary No.43059 of 2023 which
was dismissed as no ground was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
interfering with the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, Southern
Zone.
3.49. On 17.07.2014, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban
Development Department had already issued a Government Order in G.O.
(2D) No.76, dated 17.07.2014, whereby the conversion of the land from
agricultural zone into commercial zone at various survey numbers in
Thirumanilaiyur village had been permitted, accordingly, the conversion
seems to have been taken place. Though this G.O was issued in 2014, now a
writ petition also has been filed in W.P.(MD).No.7408 of 2024 by one
C.Saravanan challenging the G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 17.07.2014.
3.50. Also a writ petition was filed in W.P.(MD).No.14444 of 2023
by the said Thangavelraj seeking a relief of mandamus to the Commissioner
of Land Administration as well as the District Collector, Karur to give a
personal hearing to the writ petitioner while considering the approval of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
proposed alignment of field bothies at Thirumanilaiyur revenue village,
Karur. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court
by order, dated 20.06.2023 stating the reason that pursuant to the order
passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A.No.132 of 2022, the Tamil
Nadu Government through the Municipal Administration Department would
take necessary steps to comply the direction given by the National Green
Tribunal in O.A.No.132 of 2022.
3.51. When that being so, this Court cannot have a parallel
proceedings in the writ jurisdiction, therefore, on that ground, the said
mandamus sought for by Thangavelraj in W.P.(MD).No.14444 of 2023
was dismissed by order, dated 20.06.2023 by the learned single Judge of
this Court. Aggrieved over the same, the said Thangavelraj filed Intra Court
Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023. This Writ Appeal also is tagged
along with this batch of cases.
3.52. That apart, the said P.Saravanan filed yet another Contempt
Petition in Cont.P.(MD).No.1352 of 2020 in Cont.P.(MD).No.345 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
as within the two years period as undertook by the State Government and
Karur Municipality, the construction of bus stand was not completed,
pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.87 as well as the order passed by the Division
Bench already in W.P.(MD).No. 3449 of 2017 and therefore that contempt
petition in Cont.P.(MD).No.1352 of 2020 also has been tagged along with
this batch of cases.
3.53. Subsequently in order to comply the orders passed by the
National Green Tribunal, whereby permission has to be obtained from the
State Government for altering the field bothies for the purpose of
construction of new bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur village, as per the request
of the municipality, the Government has come forward to issue G.O in
G.O.Ms.No.550, Revenue Department, dated 09.11.2023, whereby the State
Government has given such a permission to the District Revenue
Authorities for altering the field bothies in the land in question where the
proposed construction of the new bus stand has been fixed at
Thirumanilaiyur revenue village, Karur Taluk and District. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
G.O.Ms.No.550, dated 09.11.2023 has been now challenged. This is how all
these writ petitions and other litigations have come up before this Court for
the combined hearing and disposal through this common order. This is the
second part of the factual matrix of these cases.
Arguments of learned counsel appearing on either side :
4. Number of counsel appeared for the petitioners / appellants and the
law officers including the learned Advocate General and Additional
Advocate Generals and Senior Counsels and Special Counsel for
Government as well as the Municipality appeared on the other side made
elaborate submissions for several days.
5. The submissions are in two aspects, in the first aspect, those who
are opposing the proposed construction of integrated central bus stand for
Karur Municipality at Thirumanilaiyur village made submissions opposing
the move of the Government as well as the Municipality. In the second
aspect, both private counsels as well as the Government Law Officers
including the Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
appearing for the State have made submissions in support of the move of the
State Government as well as Karur Municipality to construct the integrated
central bus stand for Karur Municipality at Thirumanilaiyur village.
6. Therefore one set of arguments were opposing the construction of
bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur, other set of arguments were in support of such
construction. The learned counsels who made submissions opposing the
proposed construction of the bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur village broadly
made the following submissions :
(i) That the Government and the Karur
Municipality originally selected the place at
Thoranakalpatti village, therefore bus stand should be
constructed in that place only.
(ii) The said Thoranakalpatti land is a Government
Poramboke land where the Government or the
Municipality would not have any financial commitment
for acquiring or purchasing of land.
(iii) The Government already issued orders to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
establish a mofussil bus stand by the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division at
Thoranakalpatti village, where G.O.Ms.No.15 and 16
were issued. While that being so, the Government cannot
change their stand without any plausible reason.
(iv) Insofar as Thirumanilaiyur location is
concerned, it is an agricultural land, where there has
been an irrigation from Amaravathi Dam. When that
being so, such an agricultural land cannot be easily
converted into a commercial land without following the
norms.
(v) Before such a conversion being taken place of
an agricultural land into a commercial one, the affected
agriculturists have not been heard, without their
consent,such a conversion would not be possible.
(vi) Field bothies are very much available in the
proposed land, where, from main canal, i.e., Raja Vaikal,
water is flowing, therefore before changing the location
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
and flow of field bothies, the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Irrigation Works (Construction of Field Bothies)
Act, 1959 ought to have been scrupulously followed.
(vii) In this context, the mandatory direction issued
by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone in
O.A.No.132 of 2022 has not been fulfilled.
(viii) The G.O.Ms.No.550, dated 09.11.2023 issued
in this regard by the State Government for conversion of
field bothies are not inconsonance with the provisions of
the 1959 Act.
(ix) Merely by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.550, dated
09.11.2023, the Government cannot change the
alignment of the field bothies as the G.O. cannot
supersede in the provisions of the Act.
(x) Section 7 of the 1959 Act forbid for any
obstruction or interference with water flowing in field
bothies.
(xi) If by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.550, the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
changes the alignment of field bothies, which will go
against the Act, therefore such a move made by issuance
of G.O.Ms.No.550 is liable to be set aside.
(xii) Before establishing a integrated bus stand,
certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act ought to
have been complied with, which, according to them, have
not been complied with.
(xiii) Assuming that the earlier G.O.Ms.No.87
having been confirmed by the Division Bench Judgment,
dated 28.04.2014, they cannot operate as a resjudicata
or constructive resjudicata against the writ petitioners
and appellant as such a proposition may not be
available in the writ jurisdiction.
7. Broadly making all these arguments, the learned counsel opposed
the move of the Government as well as the Karur Municipality to construct
the integrated central bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur, thereby they sought for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
quashment of G.O.Ms.No.76 as well as G.O.Ms.No.550 and to allow the
respective writ petitions which they have filed in support of their cases.
8. On the other hand, opposing the said submissions made on behalf
of the petitioners and appellants, the learned Advocate General as well as
learned Additional Advocate Generals and learned Senior Counsels
appearing for the Karur Municipality and some of the private counsels who
supported the move of the Government and Karur Municipality to construct
the bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur village have broadly made the following
submissions :
(i) First of all, whether a bus stand is to be constructed
in order to cater the needs of the people is a policy decision
to be taken by the Government and once such a policy
decision is taken, that cannot be easily questioned unless it
goes against the provisions of the statutes which governs the
field.
(ii) Like that, selection of a location for construction of
public utility services like bus stand by taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
consideration of all aspects is again a policy decision to be
taken by the Government in consultation with the
stakeholders especially the local bodies, here, it is Karur
Municipality and therefore such a policy decision cannot be
questioned by the individuals without any plausible reason.
(iii) Insofar as the location of the proposed bus stand
at Thirumanilaiyur is concerned, that issue has been given a
complete quietus, because of the Judgment made by the
Division Bench of this Court, dated 28.04.2014 made in W.P.
(MD).No.1881 of 2013 etc., batch, where the G.O.Ms.No.87,
dated 20.06.2013 issued by the Government has been upheld.
(iv) As against the said decision of the Division Bench,
dated 28.04.2014, Special Leave Petition was filed which
was dismissed as withdrawn, thereby a finality has been
attained on the issue with regard to the location of the
proposed bus stand.
(v) Insofar as the construction of the bus stand at
Thirumanilaiyur is concerned, land has been donated by two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
individuals at free of cost, therefore no financial commitment
would arise for the State Government or Municipality.
(vi) Since the land donated by the two individuals is
more than 12 acres, it is more than sufficient for the
proposed construction of the bus stand and also for future
expansion.
(vii) With regard to the conversion of land from
agricultural zone to commercial zone, more than two times
inspection had been undertaken by the revenue authorities
and based on the report submitted by them, the Government
in consultation with the stakeholders including the
Department of Town Planning as well as the Municipality
has come forward to issue G.O.Ms.No.76, granting
permission for such conversion. Therefore in this regard,
since there has been no procedural violation in taking steps
to conversion of the land, such a conversion having been
taken place in the year 2014 cannot be questioned without
any reason substantiated by the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
(viii) Insofar as the direction that has been given by
the National Green Tribunal to comply with the provisions of
the 1959 Act, steps had been taken by the State Government
by issuing G.O.Ms.No.550 of the Revenue Department, dated
09.11.2023.
(ix) Before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.550, G.O.Ms.No.87
and G.O.Ms.No.20, Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department was taken into account and as per the
proceedings which has been read in the G.O.Ms.No.550, the
Water Resources Department Executive Officer's letter,
dated 27.01.2023, Assistant Director and P.A., to District
Collector (Land Survey) letter, dated 03.03.2023, the DRO,
Karur letter, dated 06.03.2023, National Green Tribunal’s
Order, dated 23.03.2023, Order passed by this Court in W.P.
(MD).No.9887 of 2023, dated 25.04.2023, the letter of the
District Collector, dated 08.05.2023 and 25.07.2023, the
Commissioner of Land Administration’s letter, dated
17.05.2023, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Coimbatore, Region letter, dated 10.06.2023 and Director of
Municipal Administration's letter dated 11.08.2023 have all
been taken into account. Therefore the G.O.Ms.No.550 was
issued, according to the learned counsels, after thorough
consultation and discussion with all stakeholders, therefore
such a G.O cannot be said to be infirm on any aspect.
8. By making all these rival submissions, the learned counsel
appearing for both sides have pressed for the prayer sought for in the writ
petitions or otherwise.
Discussion :
9. We have heard the arguments and counter arguments at length
from the learned counsel appearing on either side and have perused the
materials placed before this Court. We have given our anxious consideration
to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels as well as the materials
which were placed before this Court for our perusal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
10. The first issue to be decided is as to whether the Government as
well as the Karur Municipality's move to construct the bus stand at
Thirumanilaiyur would be a valid move insofar as the selection of the
location is concerned. In this context, there has been no conflict with regard
to the fact that, the existing bus stand within the Karur Municipality, i.e.,
old bus stand, was established long years ago and the number of vehicles
(buses) to be stationed in the existing bus stand is only about 50 and Karur
being a very vast municipality subsequently been upgraded as Municipal
Corporation has been in dire need of having an expanded integrated central
bus terminus to cater the need of the people of Karur.
11. Though initially a proposal was made to construct the bus stand at
various survey numbers in Thoranakalpatti village which is a Government
Poramboke land, the proposal was rejected by the Karur Municipality.
Thereafter as directed by the Government through the Commissioner of
Municipal Administration, proposals were sought for from various people
including Philanthropists who wanted to donate the lands free of cost for the
purpose of establishing the bus stand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
12. In response to the same, two individuals had come forward to
donate the land to the extent of 12 acres at Thirumanilaiyur village.
13. These proposals submitted by the two individuals infact had been
considered in a meeting where all stakeholders participated. On 27.12.2012,
it was decided to accept the offer made by the two individuals favourably.
14. On the next day, it was placed before the Municipal Council
Meeting of the Karur Municipality, where, on 28.12.2012 by Resolution No.
1079, the Municipal Council decided to accept the offer made by the two
individuals namely M.Nachimuthu and N.Senthil Prasath, as the resolution
was carried by majority of 47 out of 48 members.
15. The relevant portion of the Resolution reads thus :
"vdnt nkw;go ,uz;L ,l';fspd; rhjf.
ghjf mk;r';fis ftdkhf ghprPyid
bra;jjpy; jpU/vd;/ehr;rpKj;J.
jpU/vd;/bre;jpy;gpurhj;. ml;y!; blf;ily;!;
vf;!;nghh;l; gpiuntl; ypkpbll;. nknd$p';
ghh;l;dh;. Mfpnahh; fUg;gk;ghisak; fpuhk
Cuhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l jpUkhepiya{h; fpuhkk; g[y
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
vz;fs;. 95. 97. 98. 115. 116. 118. 119. 120.
121. 122-1. 122-2. 123. 124. 125. 145. 146.
147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 155. 156. 157.
158. 159. 162. 163. 167. 170. 171 kw;Wk;
186y; ngUe;J epiyak; mikf;f
njitahd ,lk;. mutf;Fwpr;rp
rhiyapypUe;J ngUe;J epiyaj;ij
mila njitahd 80 mo mfy 770 mo
ePs rhiyf;fhd ,lk; kw;Wk; ngUe;J
epiyaj;ij Rw;wp mikf;f ntz;Lk; vd
fUjg;gLk; 50 mo mfy rhiyf;fhd ,lk;.
<rej;jk; rhiy kw;Wk; uhaD}h;
rhiyf;F ,izg;g[ Vw;gLj;Jk; tifapy;
cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;s 50 mo mfy
rhiyf;fhd ,lk; Mfpatw;iw
tiuglj;jpd;go jhdkhf mspf;f
Kd;te;Js;s ,lk; fUg;gk;ghisak; Cuhl;rp
vy;iyf;Fs; mike;jpUe;jhYk;. fU:h;
efuhl;rpapd; vy;iyapid xl;o
mike;Js;sjhYk;. ,e;j ,lj;jpid jhz;o
fU:h; efuhl;rpFl;gl;l njhuzf;fy;gl;o
fpuhkk; mike;Js;sjhYk;. ,g;gFjpapy;
mjpf tsh;r;rp Vw;gl tha;g;g[ cs;sJ vd;w
tpgu';fis fUj;jpy; bfhz;L fU:h; khtl;l
Ml;rpah; mth;fs;. brd;id efuhl;rp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
eph;thf Mizah; mth;fs; kw;Wk; murpd;
xg;g[jy; bgw;W ,e;j ,lj;jpy; g[jpa g[wefh;
ngUe;J epiyak; mikf;fyhk;
vd ,e;efh;kd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ/
Tl;lj;jpy; fye;J bfhz;l 48 efh;kd;w
cWg;gpdh;fspy; thh;L vz; 42 efh;kd;w
cWg;gpdh;fs; jtpu 47 efh;kd;w
cWg;gpdh;fs; Mjut[ bjhptpj;J jPh;khdk;
Vfkdjhf epiwntw;wg;gl;lJ/"
16. Pursuant to the said Resolution adopted by the Karur
Municipality, it was communicated to the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration who in turn had issued a publication in the newspaper on
07.11.2013 containing the Request For Proposal (RFP) for invitation of
consulting services for appointment of consultant for preparation of DRP
for establishment of integrated central bus stand for Karur Municipality.
This RFP, dated 07.11.2013 was questioned by one R.Ekambaram who was
the lone member who opposed the move before the Municipality at the time
the resolution was passed on 28.12.2012, in W.P.(MD).No.18881 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
17. Subsequently the Government had come forward to issue
G.O.Ms.No.87, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
dated 20.06.2013 granting approval under Section 152 of the District
Municipalities Act permitting the Karur Municipality to undertake a work
of integrated bus stand at the place accepted by the Municipal Council, i.e.,
at Thirumanilaiyur. This G.O.Ms.No.87 also was challenged by the said
Ekambaram in W.P.(MD).No.14749 of 2013. For the same relief, three more
writ petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation had been filed. All
these writ petitions were heard together and disposed by a comprehensive
Division Bench Judgment dated 28.04.2014.
18. In the said Judgment, the past history starting from 2006, where
the long felt need of having integrated central bus stand for Karur
Municipality was emanated with effect from the proposal of the District
Collector, Karur dated 28.01.2006, had been traced.
19. The learned Judges of the Division bench had met each and every
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners to oppose the move of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
proposed bus stand to be established at Thirumanilaiyur by giving
permission to the Karur Municipality under Section 152(2) of the District
Municipalities Act.
20. Ultimately the Division Bench has concluded that, all those writ
petitions were deserved to be dismissed and two such writ petitions filed by
the Councillor Ekambaram were dismissed in fact with a cost of Rs.20,000/-
The conclusion portion of the said Judgment, dated 28.04.2014 upholding
the validity of G.O.Ms.No.87 by an earlier Division Bench of this Court is
extracted hereunder for easy reference :
"Conclusion
54. In S.Venkatesan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and
others (2009) 4 L.W.459, a batch of writ petitions were
filed, purportedly in public interest, for a writ of
declaration to declare the resolution of the Tindivanam
Municipality for the establishment of a new bus-stand in a
particular area in Tindivanam, as contrary to law. One of
the main objections taken in those writ petitions was that
the land in which the bus-stand was proposed to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
located, was a water body and that therefore the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and
Eviction of Encroachments Act, 2007 would apply. In
paragraph 34 of its decision, a Division bench of this
Court held that the final decision as to where the bus-
stand is to be located is to be left with the Government to
decide. The Bench also pointed out in paragraph 40 that it
cannot substitute its views over that of the Government.
55. When the very Government Order granting permission
for locating Tindivanam Bus-stand in a land purported to
be a water body came to be challenged in another writ
petition by the same person, another Division Bench of
this court rejected the challenge in S.Venkatesan vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu and others (2011) Writ L.R.
404. The rejection was on the basis that the Government
had undertaken to deepen the lake and also increase the
tank bund to ensure the retention of the full capacity. But,
this was done by the Division Bench in view of the
admitted position that the bus-stand was sought to be
located in a lake. Such a contingency has not arisen in the
case on hand.
56. In Union of India vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu, decided on 22.04.2013 in W.A.No.572 of 2013, a
Division bench of this Court took a survey of all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
decisions of the Supreme Court on the scope of the power
of this Court for judicial review of policy decisions and
summarised the position in paragraph 61 as follows :
61. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the following principles emerge as to when the
Courts can interfere in a policy decision :
"I. If the policy fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.
II. The change in policy must be made fairly and
should not give the impression that it was so done
arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.
III. The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala
fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or
unfairness, etc.
IV. The policy is found to be against any statute or
the constitution or runs counter to the philosophy
behind these provisions.
V. It is dehors the provisions of the Act or
legislations.
VI. If the delegate has acted beyond its power of
delegation.
VII. If the policy is against public interest or does
not sub-serve public interest, public purpose and
public good."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
The case on hand does not fall under any one of
the above categories. Therefore, the writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed."
57. In normal circumstances, we would have dismissed
the writ petitions without imposing costs. But in this case,
we are constrained to impose costs upon the petitioner
R.Eakamparam (W.P.(MD)Nos.18881 and 19749 of
2013), for the simple reason that after having suffered a
defeat in the meeting of the council on 28.12.2012, he had
made use of this court to annul the effect of resolution
passed by an overwhelming majority of 47:1. Therefore,
he is directed to pay costs to the Karur Municipality to the
tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).
58. Therefore, in fine, the writ petitions W.P.(MD).Nos.
18881 and 19749 of 2013 are dismissed with costs of Rs.
20,000/-. The other writ petitions are dismissed without
any order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed."
21. As against the said Order, dated 28.04.2014 by the Division bench
of this Court, the said R.Ekambaram preferred Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos.20706, 20707 of 2014 which came to be dismissed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
withdrawn by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 19.08.2014.
The relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads thus :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to
withdrawn the special leave petitions.
Permission granted. The special leave petitions
accordingly dismissed as withdrawn."
22. Therefore a complete quietus has been given to the issue as to
whether the proposed integrated central bus stand for Karur Municipality
can be established at 12 acres of lands donated by two individuals at
Thirumanilaiyur village or not.
23. When that being the legal position, where the G.O.Ms.No.87
issued by the Government giving such permission under Section 152 of the
District Municipalities Act having been considered and upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court, against which the Special Leave Petition filed
by the writ petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, by thus a quietus has
been given. Once again the very same issue is agitated of course in a
different footing to state that the land in question at Thirumanilaiyur village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
was originally the agricultural land subsequently has been converted into a
commercial zone and such a conversion could not be possible. Also on the
ground that there has been field bothies available which supplies water form
Amaravathi River / Dam and if these field bothies are destroyed in the name
of relocation the agricultural lands would get affected and such a conversion
of field bothies whether could be possibly made by the District Collector
without getting the concurrence of the Government. If that being so,
whether the land in question at Thirumanilaiyur can be still be considered as
suitable land for the purpose of establishing the integrated new central bus
stand for Karur Municipality is the present question which have been raised
on behalf of the petitioners.
24. Though certain grounds have been raised by quoting the
provisions of the Field Bothies Act, 1959 and also questioning the 2014
G.O., i.e., G.O.Ms.No.76 for converting the land from agricultural zone to
commercial zone, whether the conclusion reached by the Division Bench of
this Court, by order dated 28.04.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.18881 of 2013
et., batch as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of the
dismissal of Special Leave Petition by withdrawal of order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
19.08.2014, can be re agitated by the petitioners is yet another question.
25. In this context, the main opposition came from the learned
Advocate General, learned Additional Advocate Generals and other
counsels supporting the move of the Government and the Karur
Municipality is that, absolutely there has been a constructive resjudicata that
would apply to the present case, where the issue since has already been
given a quietus between the parties, the very same issue cannot once again
be raised, of course by raising some other grounds and therefore on the
ground of resjudicata, the challenge against G.O.Ms.No.550 would go, is
the main contention on behalf of the Government as well as the
Municipality.
26. In this context, even though it was contended by the learned
counsels appearing for the petitioners that, such a theory of resjudicata
would not be made applicable in writ proceedings and in this context, they
made submissions to state that legal ground can be raised at any point of
time especially in the context of the right which is flowing from the
provisions of the statute and therefore on that ground if the location is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
questioned, the same cannot be treated as hit by the doctrine of resjudicata.
Whether such a defence taken by the petitioners side can be accepted by this
Court is yet another question to be answered.
27. In order to delve into the aforestated questions and the issues
involved in this batch of cases, we further move on to take up the provisions
of the 1959 Act, the orders passed by the Division Bench, by order,
28.04.2014, the power of the State Government under Article 162 to issue
Executive Orders. If it is needed in the administration of the State and also
factually whether such kind of field bothies had been found in the land in
question and assuming that those field bothies are found whether the
proposed alteration to be undertaken by the Revenue Administration of the
District concerned are inconsonance with the provisions of 1959 Act or not
are to be considered.
28. First let us take the provisions of 1959 Act. In Section 2(c), the
field bothies has been defined as follows :
"(c) 'field bothies" means small channels which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
run from outlets in the Government channels and
which convey and distribute water to individual
fields."
29. Sections 3 and 4 speaks about the role of the District Collector as
well as the owner of the land for construction and digging of field bothies
which reads thus :
"3. If the Collector is satisfied that it is necessary
or expedient that any owner should construct or dig
field bothies in his land in the ayacut of an
irrigation work, he shall by notice require the
owner to construct or dig field bothies in that land
within such time as may be specified in the notice
and in such manner as may be prescribed.
4. If the owner fails to construct or dig field
bothies in his land as required in the notice and in
the manner prescribed under section 3, the
Collector may, after giving the owner a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, make an order
excluding such land from the ayacut of the
irrigation work concerned."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
30. Section 7 says the following :
"7.(1) No person shall, except in accordance with
such rules as may be prescribed, do anything
which obstructs or interfered or is likely to
obstruct or interfere with the flow of water in any
field bothy.
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of
sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to six months or
with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees or with both."
31. Having taken note of these provisions of the 1959 Act, when the
issue was raised before the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, it has
given a detailed discussion about the provisions of this Act and how it
should be applied to the present issue and ultimately has come to the
conclusion that, without getting proper approval from the Government, the
change of field bothies cannot be undertaken, therefore a direction also has
been given by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone by its order
dated 23.03.2023 to get such a permission from the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
32. The relevant portion of the order passed by the National Green
Tribunal, Southern Zone are extracted hereunder for ready reference :
"25. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu, Irrigation Works
(Construction of Field Bothies) Act, 1959 can also usefully be looked
into. The said act is provide for the construction or digging of field
bothies by the Government and by owners of land entitled to irrigation
under certain irrigation works in the State of Tamil Nadu. The owners
of the land are entitled to irrigation under certain irrigation works by
these field bothies. Field bothies means small channels which run from
outlets in the Government channels and which convey and distribute
water to individual fields. The said act also prohibits any obstruction
or interference with water flowing in field bothies. While hearing the
matter, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State also wanted to file
the mitigation measures to be taken for the above project as the same is
obliterating the field bothies.
26. In this regard a joint inspection of the proposed bus stand
site at Thirumanilaiyur dated 27.01.2023 but filed on 08.02.2023 may
be usefully referred to. The District Collector had instructed the
Executive Engineer, WRD, Amaravathi Basin Division, Dharapuram,
Municipal Engineer, Karuar Corporation and Joint Director of
Agriculture, Karur District to have a joint Inspection and study the
condition of the existing field bothies and to submit a feasibility report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
for the proposed change in alignment of field bothies along the
boundaries of bus stand and site to supply Water for irrigation to the
downstream side fields.
27. A Joint Inspection was taken up 25.01.2023. During the inspection,
the Municipal Engineer, Karur Corporation has informed that the
proposed bus stand site there are field bothies (Kavur Vaikkal) are
running in S.F. Nos, 247P, 248P 116P, 114P, 113P, 152P,151P, 149P,
148P and 146P. A sketch showing the field bothies which are running
west to east direction inside the bus stand building is also furnished. It
is stated that these field bothies are required to be changed for its
alignment as had been indicated in the sketch to irrigate the fields in
downstream of the field bothies.
28. The report reads further follows:
"The Thirumanilaiyur Branch canal offtaking at LS 9/510 Km of
Right Bank Canal. This Thirumanilaiyur Branch canal runs for a
length of 1.550 Km and ayacut area commanded by this canal is
65.07.00 Ha (161.00 Acres) through 8 numbers of sluices. These
field bothies, for which change in alignment is proposed,
offtakes from sluice 6 and 7 of Thirumanilaiyur Branch canal.
The levels of the Thirumanilaiyur Branch canal and the field
bothies in the bus stand site are taken by the Assistant Executive
Engineer, WRD, Amaravathi Basin Sub Division-4, Karur
Municipal Corporation, Karur and the feasibility report is
analysed on 26.01.2023. The levels are taken at the sluice points,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
at the boundary points of the Bus stand and at the existing
downstream side of field bothies. The temporary bench mark is
taken as 100.000 m at Road culvert paravet wall at LS 650m in
Thirumanilaiyur Branch canal. After taking the level, it is found
that:
i) The sill level at Sluice No. 6 is 98.140 m.
ii) The bed level of the downstream field bothie is 97.410 m.
iii) The level difference observed is 0.730 m.
The proposed bed levels to be maintained in the proposed
alignment of field bothies are mentioned as follows to supply the
water to downstream side ayacut areas.
S.No. Location Proposed Bed
level of
Sluice / Field
Bothies (in m)
1. Sluice No.6 of Thirumanilaiyur 98.140
Branch canal
2. Sluice No.7 of Thirumanilaiyur 98.040
Branch canal
3. Tapping point of Field Bothie 98.057
of Sluice No.6
4. Tapping point of Field Bothie 97.928
of Sluice No.7
5. Linking point of Field Bothie of 97.638
Sluice No.7
6. Linking point of Field Bothie of 97.526
Sluice No.6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
S.No. Location Proposed Bed
level of
Sluice / Field
Bothies (in m)
7. Existing downstream side Field 97.410
Bothie from Sluice No.6
8. Existing downstream side Field 97.530
Bothie from Sluice No.7
Due to the change in alignment of Field Bothies as proposed
in the sketch enclosed (marked in green colour), there is a
technical feasibility for supplying water to the downstream
side areas through the proposed change in alignment of
Field Bothies (kavurVaikkal).
Necessary approval from the Government may please be
obtained for this change in alignment of Field Bothies."
29. The above joint report filed by the Department of WRD, Irrigation
Department, Karur City Municipality Corporation have categorically
admitted the existence of the field bothies and they are being
obliterated for the purpose of the construction of the bus stand and that
it would take necessary approval from the Government for the change
in alignment of the field bothies. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu
irrigation Works (Construction of Field Bothies) Act, 1959 is as
follows:
"7.Obstruction or Interference with water flowing in field
bothy prohibited the certain cases- (1) No person shall,
except in accordance with such rules as may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
prescribed, do anything which obstructs or interferes or
is likely to obstruct or interfere with the flow of Water in
any field bothy,
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1), he shall be punishable with Imprisonment
which may extend to six months or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
30. The above section clearly indicates that without appropriate
approval any obstruction or interference with the flow of water in field
bothies cannot be done and there is also a penalty provision.
31. The joint inspection report has categorically stated that necessary
approval from the Government may have to be obtained for this
change in alignment of field bothies. Admittedly, the constructions
have been started as had been seen from the photographs furnished by
the 7th respondent without obtaining necessary approval as per Section
7 of the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Works (Construction of Field Bothies)
Act 1959.
32. In this regard unless and otherwise the 7th respondent had obtained
the necessary approval from the Government, the construction works
should not have been commenced. It is only at the intervention of this
Tribunal, they have now furnished a sketch suggesting the technical
feasibility for supplying water to the downstream side areas through
the proposed change in alignment of field bothies. Whether any such
studies have been taken up, whether the change in alignment has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
already been given are all not known. In such circumstances ,this
Tribunal had been repeatedly holding that before such alignment being
done, the main work should not be taken up.
33. However in this case being the re alignment of field bothies, unless
approval from the Government is obtained the construction of the bus
stand cannot be proceeded with. Till the matter was reserved, no such
approval was produced before this Tribunal for having obtained such
an approval for change in field bothies. The Revenue standing orders
of the State deals with water course poromboke and states that great
care should be taken to preserve the margins of canals, channels and
streams and transfer of such water course can be ordered by
Government in consultation with the Commissioner of Land
Administration and Chief Engineer (WRD).
34. In such circumstances, the 7th respondent is directed to get
appropriate approval for change in alignment for the field bothies as
per the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Works (Construction of Field Bothies)
Act, 1959 which is also admitted by them in the joint report before
proceeding further. Till such time such approval is obtained, the 7th
respondent is directed to suspend the work in the areas where the field
bothies/channels exist as well as areas where the diversion is
proposed."
33. Since such a direction was given in para 34 of National Green
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Tribunal order as extracted herein above that, the Karur Municipality must
get proper approval for change in alignment for the field bothies as per the
1959 Act, the Municipality through the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration had approached the Government for getting such a
permission. Only pursuant to these developments including the direction
issued by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, dated 23.03.2023,
the Government of Tamil Nadu through the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department has come out with G.O.Ms.No.550, dated
09.11.2023. By virtue of the said G.O., such a permission had been given to
the Water Resources Department as well as the Revenue Department to take
necessary steps to change or alter the field bothies without affecting the
water canal for supplying the water to the agricultural lands.
34. The said G.O.Ms.No.550 also have been challenged in some of
the writ petitions in this batch of cases.
35. Though arguments had been advanced on behalf of the writ
petitioners who challenged the G.O.Ms.No.550, that such a permission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
cannot be given by the Government without consulting the agriculturist, we
do not think that such a procedure is to be adopted by the Government
before issuance of such permission to alter the bothies.
36. The reason being that, in view of the provisions of the 1959 Act,
in fact the Collector is empowered to persuade the owner of the land to
construct or dig field bothies in his land in the Ayacut of an irrigation work
and the Collector can issue notice requiring the owner to construct or dig
field bothies in that land within a time frame. Section 4 makes it clear that,
if the owner fails to construct or dig field dothies in its land as required in
the notice, the Collector may after giving the owner a reasonable
opportunity of being heard make an order excluding such land from the
Ayacut of the irrigation work concerned.
37. Therefore it is to be noted that, in case the Collector wants to
exclude any land from the Ayacut for the irrigation from the water sources
then alone such opportunity of being heard be given to the owner of the
agricultural land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
38. Here in the case in hand, the Collector being the head of the
District Administration, in consultation or in assistance with the Water
Resources Department is going to make only the changes of the existing
bothies, thereby if any bothies running across the land of 12 acres which are
proposed for construction of the integrated central bus stand, only to that
extent, the bothies would be relocated at the edge or side of the lands
concerned.
39. In this context, an objection had been raised by some of the
counsels appearing for the petitioners that, if such a alteration is made, the
altered bothies would not serve the purpose of taking the water to the lands
located in the upstream.
40. In this context, even during the pendency of these cases, we have
directed the authorities concerned to further inspect and file the field map as
to the existing bothies and the proposed alterations to be made in the
location of the bothies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
41. In this context, after completing the field survey and fixing the
location of altering the field bothies, the authorities have filed the map
along with the joint inspection report, where it is seen that there has been
existence of the field bothies within the proposed area, where the Raja
Vaikal is shown in blue colour and the proposed alteration of the canal or
field bothies were shown in the green colour.
42. In this context, though it is the specific case of the petitioners
that, the lands since are lying in the upstream, there is no possibility of
taking the water by diverting the field bothies, however from the map, it is
seen that, the diversion is made at point Nos.3 and 4 and it reaches point
Nos.5 and 6 at the margins to reach the lands at point No.7 and beyond.
43. When the map shows that at point Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6, the lands are
at a slightly lower level at each points and both the present bed level and the
bed level to be provided are marked and since the map did not suggest as to
what is the ground level in between the point Nos. 4 and 5, where there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
were nearly two divisions as both the present ground level and the bed level
to be provided has not been given in these two corners and further the
ground level provides in map at point Nos.7 and 8 is not specified whether
it is in the existing ground level or bed level are to be provided.
44. Therefore, once again an inspection had been undertaken,
thereafter a revised plan with map had been filed by the authorities which
we have perused, where what is the level of all these points have been
specifically mentioned. Therefore from east to west or from left to right, the
new proposed channel route of field bothies can very well flow the water
even to the upstream area of lands which is thoroughly feasible as per the
technical report with map submitted by the authorities concerned.
45. In this context, except the arguments that has been made on behalf
of the petitioners counsel that, such of the upper stream lands may not get
water with the flow through the gravity through the altered field bothies,
there has been no technical support in support of their contention. Whereas
the contention made on behalf of the Government and the department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
concerned including the Karur Municipality after having made joint
inspection by the Engineers concerned, have made it clear that how the
alteration of field bothies could be feasible and possible one and if such an
alteration is made, through the altered field bothies how the water will flow
through the gravitational force even to the upstream lands because of the
ground level available in that locality are all demonstrated before us.
46. After having gone through all these aspects, since the Court is not
having a technical expertise in making its opinion, as per the settled legal
proposition in number of Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
report submitted by the technical persons in this regard has to be accepted
by this Court.
47. If that is the accepted, the only hurdle or grievance expressed by
the petitioners also is sorted out and a way out have been found.
48. Insofar as the validity of the G.O.Ms.No.550 is concerned, as has
been stated supra, if we look at the provisions of 1959 Act carefully, it does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
not give any such leverage to the owners of the land to be heard before
making any alteration of field bothies as such a work has to be undertaken
by the Revenue Administration in consultation with the Water Resources
Department, that is the erstwhile PWD.
49. Here in the case in hand, such a permission since was required to
be obtained from the Government and before such permission was secured
from the Government, since the Municipality started making construction of
the bus stand by inviting tenders and handing over the work order to the
contractor, some of those writ petitions had been filed seeking a
restrainment order from this Court against the Municipality and other
authorities to proceed with the construction of the bus stand including the
stay of the operation of the Government Order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.550.
50. Though interim order of status quo or injunction or stay has been
granted in these cases at various point of time and those interim orders are
still in operation and we by interim order, dated 30.04.2024, in fact having
considered all these aspects, wanted to extend the interim orders until the
disposal of these cases finally, after having gone through the provisions of
the 1959 Act, the report submitted by the authorities concerned after having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
joint inspection, we are satisfied that insofar as the feasibility of relocating
the field bothies, only in a limited extent for the purpose of the proposed
construction of the bus stand, would no way offend or affect the water flow
for the purpose of agricultural land including upstream lands.
51. Though it is yet another point that was raised on behalf of the
Government and Municipality and those petitioners who support the case of
the municipality and the Government to go ahead with the construction of
the bus stand that, there has been no agricultural activities in the locality for
more than a decade and absolutely there has been no field bothies which are
available or surfacing and only in the field map this is available, not on the
ground in practical, whether the agricultural activities recently has been
taken place or not and the field bothies are surfaced as of now or not may
not be the reason to ignore the grievance of the agriculturist if any with
regard to protecting the field bothies which are originally available as per
the provisions of the Field Bothies Act, 1959.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
52. That is the reason why the National Green Tribunal also in its
order referred to supra had given such a direction to a Municipality to seek
such a permission from the Government to alter the field bothies enabling
the land in question proposed to construct the bus stand free of any cross
running of field bothies and therefore such a direction also now has been
complied with by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.550 by the Government.
53. Therefore the apprehension raised and the objection made on
behalf of the petitioners since has been cleared and those objections cannot
be sustained in view of the aforestated facts and circumstances, we are of
the view that, there has been no plausible reason to oppose the G.O.Ms.No.
550, dated 09.11.2023.
54. That apart insofar as the plea that has been raised on behalf of
some of the petitioners that, the conversion of the land at Thirumanilaiyur
village from agricultural zone into commercial zone for the purpose of
construction of the bus stand is concerned, that is not inconsonance with the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 also would not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
hold much water because if we look at G.O.Ms.No.76, which is also
questioned in some of the writ petitions in this batch, that was issued in the
year 2014.
55. Under various provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act,
the Government is empowered to direct the planning authority, Regional
planning authority to draw master plans, new town development plan and
local plan etc. When such being the position, the Government is empowered
to issue such Government Order like G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 17.07.2014 for
conversion of certain lands at Thirumanilaiyur village from agricultural
zone into commercial zone and that kind of power vested with the
Government cannot be denuded merely because the lands which are in
question comes under the agriculture zone.
56. If such a power is not vested with the Government, there could be
no conversion possible of any land from any category to any other category.
Such kind of blanket ban cannot be imposed against the Government with
regard to conversion of land on need basis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
57. The Government being the welfare Government is fully
empowered to take decisions and issue Executive Orders under Article 162
of the Constitution and here in the case in hand, of course inconsonance
with various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act
for converting certain lands from 'A' use to 'B' use, i.e., agricultural use to
commercial use, the G.O. was issued.
58. When such a land conversion is taken place that would no way
affect any individual or group of persons as the land being converted are the
lands belong to two individuals who have already donated the lands for the
purpose of establishing the bus stand.
59. Moreover selecting and fixing the said location at
Thirumanilaiyur was already been permitted under Section 152 of the
District Municipalities Act by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.87
permitting the Municipality to go ahead with establishing of a integrated
central bus stand at Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
60. When that was questioned before this Court as we stated supra,
the Division Bench of this Court by an exhaustive order, dated 28.04.2014
has considered all aspects and dismissed those writ petitions in fact some of
them were dismissed with costs.
61. When that being the position, the challenge now has been made
against the G.O.Ms.No.76 not only on the aspect of latches but also on
merits would not be sustained and therefore, the validity of G.O.Ms.No.76
is to be upheld.
62. Insofar as the location at Thirumanilaiyur is concerned for the
purpose of establishing the integrated central bus stand at Karur all those
contentions which were raised at the time in the first round of litigation
which were disposed by the Division Bench Judgment dated 28.04.2014
were thoroughly discussed and rejected.
63. The conclusion portion of the order of the Division Bench, dated
28.04.2014 has already been extracted herein above, where in para 56 by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
citing the decision of Union of India vs. Government of Tamil Nadu in
W.A.No.572 of 2013 dated 22.04.2013 of a Division Bench of this Court, it
has been held what is the scope of the judicial review on policy decision
taken by the Government.
64. In para 61 of the said Judgment, the various situations under
which such a policy decision could be challenged has been summarised,
where if the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness or the change in
policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so
done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention or the policy decision can be
faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or
unfairness or if the policy is found to be against any statute or the
constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions or if
it is dehors the provisions of the Act or if the delegate has acted beyond its
power of delegation or if the policy is against public interest or does not
sub-serve public interest for the public good.
65. Here in the case in hand, it is nobody's case that, there is no need
to establish an integrated central bus stand for Karur Municipality. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
that being so, efforts had been taken by the stakeholders, i.e., Municipality,
District Administration, Government etc., from 2006 to find out the proper
location to establish the bus stand. Even though initially some lands were
located at Thoranakalpatti village, for variety of reasons that was rejected by
the elected Municipal Council of Municipality. Since the Municipality is
governed by the elected municipal council, before whom the proposal at
Thoranakalpatti was placed, it was in toto rejected and the Government also
having accepted the same, wanted to find out and search for an alternative
place, for which notification was issued. Pursuant to which two individuals
had come forward to donate lands at Thirumanilaiyur village to the extent of
12 acres and those lands are found to be suitable for the purpose of
proposed establishment of the bus stand.
66. Insofar as the said land is concerned, the Government had given
permission under Section 152 of the District Municipalities Act, in view of
the expansion of the municipal area by issuance of the Government Order,
whereby the geographical extent of the Karur Municipality has been
extended, such a permission under Section 152 was also given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
67. When that was questioned, as we stated and discussed herein
above, a complete quietus had been given by dismissing those writ petitions
by the Division Bench Judgment dated 28.04.2014 which was appealed to
the Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn by the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.08.2014.
68. When that being so, insofar as the policy decision taken by the
Government to locate the proposed central bus stand of Karur at various
survey numbers of 12 acres of land donated by two individuals at
Thirumanilaiyur village has been approved with the seal of this Court by a
Judicial order and the said judicial order having become final whether the
same issue can be reagitated before this Court.
69. In this context, the learned Advocate General, learned Additional
Advocate Generals as well as the learned counsel appearing in support of
the Government and Municipality has raised the point of resjudicata.
Though it was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that in a writ proceedings, such a theory of resjudicata would not apply,
insofar as the selection and finalisation of a location to have any public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
project for the public good at large, if it has been questioned before the
Court of law and such a policy decision in selecting and fixing a particular
location is approved and upheld by a decision of the Court, whether the
same location can again be questioned in different name or different
grounds by the litigant either as adversarial writ petition or in the name of
the Public Interest Litigation had engaged in our minds. We are fully
satisfied that the order of the Division Bench, dated 28.04.2014 in all four
has given a complete answer to all these questions.
70. When such a finality has been reached by an exhaustive decision
of this Court, which infact has been concluded by dismissal of the SLP by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such a issue cannot once again be raised by any
other litigants or the same litigants by raising different or additional
grounds. The reason being that, if such kind of litigations are permitted,
there would not be any quietus to any issue in a Court of law. If the same
issue again and again been permitted to be raised in a different name by
different litigants with different grounds, the litigious area alone would be
expanded, and the purpose of judicial review in any confronted issue raised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
before the Court of law, where the finality is already reached by an
exhaustive decision of the Court, would get defeated.
71. Therefore the point that has been raised by the learned Advocate
General and Additional Advocate Generals and other counsel in support of
the Government and Municipality that, with regard to the location of the
proposed bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur village is concerned, that has already
been given concluded, therefore there is a resjudicata on this issue which
would hit the present batch of writ petitions filed in opposing the said
location at Thirumanilaiyur once again, is to be accepted.
72. Insofar as the challenge that has been made in G.O.Ms.No.550 is
concerned, as we discussed herein above, the G.O.Ms.No.550 was issued in
order to comply with the provisions of the 1959 Act and also in compliance
of the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone. If
that being so, the G.O.Ms.No.550 cannot be questioned with the ground that
has been raised in those writ petitions questioning the validity of
G.O.Ms.No.550 and therefore for all these reasons, the G.O.Ms.No.550 also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
is to be sustained and none of the grounds raised by the petitioners to make
a challenge successfully against G.O.Ms.No.550 would be sustainable.
73. Since the G.O.Ms.No.87 has been upheld and the only infirmity
on the part of the municipality that they wanted to proceed with the
construction of the bus stand without getting permission from the
Government for change of the location of the bothies since has been
complied with by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.550 as per the directions issued by
the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone and the G.O.Ms.No.76 issued
in the year 2014 is also a valid piece of Executive Order within the realm of
of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution, none of these
challenge made in this batch of cases opposing various Government Orders
and the move of the Government and the Municipality to proceed with the
construction of integrated central bus stand at Karur Municipality at
Thirumanilaiyur would be considered to be a sustainable one.
74. Resultantly, all these challenges have to necessarily fail and
therefore the writ petitions opposing the Government and the Municipalities
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
move to construct the integrated central bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur, Karur
Taluk and District would fail and are liable to be dismissed.
75. But at the same time some of the writ petitions which have been
filed in support of the construction of the proposed bus stand at
Thirumanilaiyur village seeking for mandamus are to be allowed, even
though already there has been a direction issued by a Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.(MD).No.3449 of 2017, whereby a mandamus was issued to
implement the G.O.Ms.No.87 and against which though review has been
filed, that has also been dismissed and a contempt petition also has been
filed in Cont.P.(MD).No.345 of 2018, where a status report had been filed
and the Secretary to Government took an undertaking by giving a time
schedule of two years maximum to complete the project at Thirumanilaiyur
by executing or implementing the G.O.Ms.No.87 and this has been recorded
by the Division Bench by closing the Cont.P.(MD).No.345 of 2018, the
authorities cannot go back from the said commitment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
76. Therefore from that angle also, the proposed construction of the
new integrated bus stand at Thirumanilaiyur cannot be faulted with or such
an attempt cannot be thwarted by filing more and more litigations like the
present batch of writ petitions.
77. In all these litigation mainly one S.Thangavelraj had been the writ
petitioner and he alone had moved the issue before the National Green
Tribunal and had gone to the Hon’ble Supreme Court where he withdrawn
the SLP and the SLP filed by him against the National Green Tribunal order
also had got dismissed and again he has come forward to file the present
writ petition.
78. If we look at the conduct of the said Thangavelraj, it seems that he
had no agricultural land in the locality at Thirumanilaiyur. He had
purchased 1.10 acres of land at S.No.109 at Thirumanilaiyur village by a
registered sale deed, dated 23.08.2022. On the next day, i.e., on 24.08.2022,
the said Thangavelraj had given a representation to the State Government,
District Administration as well as the Municipal Commissioner, where he
has made a request that he is having the agricultural land at S.No.109 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
Thirumanilaiyur village, for the said land, he is getting water through the
canal from Amaravathi river and if the said canal is closed for the purpose
of the proposed construction of the bus stand, the water flow would get
affected and thereby his agricultural activities also would get affected,
hence, he had requested the authorities to give up the proposal to construct
the bus stand itself.
79. Then he approached the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone
by filing O.A.No.132 of 2022 and in the said O.A.No.132 of 2022 alone, the
National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone has given direction to the
Municipality to get permission from the Government for the purpose of
altering the field bothies.
80. If we look at the way in which the said Thangavelraj had
approached the Court of law as well as the National Green Tribunal, it
clearly demonstrates that, he is not an agriculturist prior to 23.08.2022 and
suddenly he purchased 1.10 acres of land only on 23.08.22, within 24 hours,
i.e., on 24.08.2022, he made a representation that his 1.10 acres of land
would get affected if the bus stand is constructed, therefore stop the
construction of the bus stand. This clearly demonstrates the ill intention on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
the part of the said Thangavelraj to approach this Court to file litigation
after litigation in order to thwart or prevent the move of the Government
and Municipality to construct the bus stand.
81. Whether the agriculturist purchased one acre of land just one day
earlier can immediately swing into the action to thwart the attempt of the
Government and the Municipality to construct the bus stand for the entire
welfare of the general public in the Municipal Corporation or Municipal
town of the Karur is the question.
82. This of his conduct clearly exposes himself that, he has not come
forward with clean hands before this Court with good intention, instead he
has been driven by forces behind him and the actual purpose and motive of
those forces who drive this Thangavelraj though can be presumed, we do
not go into that aspect further as these kind of litigations are not new to this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
83. The construction of a bus stand in a fastly growing and
developing town or municipality / corporation which is also one of the
industrial town in the State of Tamil Nadu is a dire public need of the
Municipality and the locality or the District concerned. Since the Karur
Municipality has now become the Corporation and it is also being the
Headquarter of the Revenue District, the logistics through transport
connectivity of public transport system has become essential. If such an
essential public need if at all is to be fulfilled, when steps are being taken by
the Government and the Municipality, these kind of hurdles would come for
ulterior motive or for individual progression.
84. However, the Court of law would only see the policy decision of
the Government, whether such a policy decision is taken based on
reasonableness and public need and public good and if the policy decision
is implemented, the opposition given by any individual or group of
individuals whether would be sustainable in the eye of law and if those
objections are not sustainable in the eye of law, the Courts would not show
its indulgence in favour of such litigants as they come to the Court only to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
achieve their illegal design for the reasons best known to them.
85. Therefore such kind of litigations since are pouring in before this
Court, especially in this batch of cases, despite the quietus having been
given by an exhaustive decision of the earlier Division Bench on
28.04.2014, it has made very clear and we are convinced to that effect that
these litigations are not meant for any public good but only for individual
progression which can easily be construed as an ulterior motive.
86. If we weigh the public good on the one side and the individual
progression or group of individual's progression on other side, naturally the
pendulum would take the side of the public good at large. Here also the
Judicial pendulum naturally would take a side of public good and not in
favour of individuals or group of individuals to sustain and fulfil their desire
either to progress themselves or to act as carriers of such kind of litigations
of those individuals or group of individuals who are sitting behind and drive
these people to come to this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
87. Therefore we are fully satisfied that, all the legal compliances
have been made out or fully complied with by the stakeholders namely the
State Government, District Administration, Water Resources Department as
well as the Karur Municipality under various provisions of law in order to
establish an integrated central bus stand at Karur Municipality in the
location called Thirumanilaiyur village at Karur Taluk.
88. During the hearing it has been brought to our notice by the
learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate Generals appearing for
the State that 31% of the work has already been completed, at the time since
interim orders have been granted, the work has been stopped.
89. Since the construction of the bus stand, as we discussed herein
above, is a dire need for the people who are at Municipal Corporation as
well as in the District concerned at large, such a public project cannot be
unnecessarily halted without any plausible reason. Therefore we are
convinced that such an interim orders granted also shall not stand in the way
in proceeding further of the proposed construction of the bus stand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
90. Therefore we are inclined to dispose of all these writ petitions,
writ appeal and contempt petition to the following effect :
(i) That the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).No.1470 of 2024,
W.P.(MD).No.4017 of 2024, W.P.(MD).No.9786 of 2022, W.P.
(MD).No.20509 of 2022, W.P.(MD).No.9887 of 2023, W.P.
(MD).No.9132 of 2023 and W.P.(MD).No.7408 of 2024 are
dismissed.
(ii) That the writ petitions in W.P.(MD).No.16859 of 2020, W.P.
(MD).No.18160 of 2020, W.P.(MD).No.3242 of 2021 are
allowed.
(iii) W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 is dismissed.
(iii) The Contempt Petition in Cont.P.(MD).No.1352 of 2020 is
closed.
However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
14.02.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
tsvn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration
Land Administration Department,
2nd Floor, Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
4. The Directorate of Municipal Administration
75, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
5. The District Collector
Karur, Karur District.
6. The Commissioner
Karur Municipal Corporation,
Karur, Karur District.
7. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Ezhilagam, Anna Building,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
8. The Commissioner
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
9. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Transport Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
10. The Secretary to Government
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH2) Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 9.
11. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Kumbakonam Ltd.,
No.27, Railway Station New Road,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
12. The Assistant Director
District Town and Planning Office,
Karur District.
13. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner
Rehabilitation and Welfare for Non-resident Tamils,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai - 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
14. The Block Development Officer (Panchayat)
Thanthoni Panchayat Union,
Karur District.
15. The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Union of India,
Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
16. The Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Environment and Forests,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
17. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Department of Municipal Administration
Urban and Water Supply
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
18. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
100, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
19. The District Environmental Engineer
Karur No.26,
Ramakrishnapuram West,
Karur - 639 001.
20. The District Collector
Thanthonimalai,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
21. The Principal Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
22. The Director
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Department,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
23. The President
Karuppampalayam Village Panchayat,
Karur, Karur District.
24. The District Revenue Officer
District Collector Office,
Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos. 1470 and 4017 of 2024, 16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887 and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and Cont.P (MD).No.1352 of 2020
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
tsvn
Common Order in
W.P.(MD).Nos.1470 and 4017 of 2024,
16859 and 18160 of 2020, 3242 of
2021, 9786 and 20509 of 2022, 9887
and 9132 of 2023, 7408 of 2024,
W.A.(MD).No.1325 of 2023 and
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
