Madras High CourtWP/1123/2016allowed

Thirukachur K.Arumugam v. The Director General Of

2016-01-29Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.1123 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.855 of 2016 Thirukachur K.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director General of Police, Police Department, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandalur Police Sub-Division, Vandalur, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Guduvancheri Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

5. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet Revenue Division, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram District.

... Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letter of the third respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.06-1/Ka.thu.Ka/Va.Oo.Ko/2016 dated 08.01.2016 and quash the same, consequently, direct the respondents herein to grant permission to the petitioner party to conduct a state level political conference, which is scheduled to be held on 14.02.2016 at VGP Thidal, Kilaambakkam, Vandalur-Urappakkam GST Road, Kancheepuram District forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu For Respondent : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Nos.1 to 6 Advocate General Asst. by Mr.STS.Moorthy, GP Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP

O R D E R

The petitioner, which is a political party, sought for permission to conduct a conference on 14.02.2016 on VGP Thidal, Kilaambakkam, Vandalur-Urappakkam GST Road, Kancheepuram District. By the impugned order dated 08.01.2016, the request made was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has to get permission for usage of land from the Revenue Officials. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2.Heard Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that permission has been obtained from the person, who is stated to be the owner of the land, however, the application made seeking permission from the police authorities was referred to the Revenue authorities, who have stated that in view of the ongoing dispute between the owner of the land on one hand and the Government on the other hand, the request cannot be considered. The learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition filed by the owner of the land in W.P.No.10532 of 2008, challenging the proceedings under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended by Act 17/80, has been allowed by the order of this Court dated 08.07.2015 and therefore, the Writ Petition has to be allowed. 4.

The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that no request was made to the Revenue Officials by the Petitioner and there is cloud over the title of the land. He would submit that as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, a Writ Appeal has been filed and an order has been passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.A.

"All the parties are restrained from alienating, transferring and creating any encumbrance on the property in question."

and therefore, this Court shall not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner.

5.There are two facts which are not in dispute. First fact is that the petitioner has obtained permission from the petitioner in W.P.No.10532 of 2008 for conducting a conference. Secondly, the writ petition filed by the said person challenging the proceedings initiated in the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 as amended by Act 17/80, has been allowed by this Court by an order dated 08.07.2015. Therefore, the only question for consideration is on the interpretation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench referred supra.

6.In the said order, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that all the parties are restrained from alienating, transferring and creating any encumbrance on the property in question. Permission granted to this writ petitioner, by the petitioner in W.P.10532 of 2008 cannot be termed as alienation, transfer and creating encumbrance on the property in question. In other words, it can, at best be, termed as a license for a particular period to use the land. Similarly, the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench cannot construed as a blanket order staying the order of the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, the stand of the respondents is very well known. The stand of the Revenue Officials is to the effect that the dispute is only over the title.

They are also before this Court and such a dispute per se would not dis-entitle the petitioner from using the property for a single day. Therefore, looking from any perspective, this Court is unable to decline the permission sought for. After all, this Court as a Constitutional Court is duty bound to see to it that the rights granted under Article 19 of the Constitution, is ensured to a person who comes before it.

7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and consequently, the respondents are directed to give permission to the petitioner to conduct conference scheduled to be held on 14.02.2016 at VGP Thidal, Kilaambakkam, Vandalur-Urappakkam GST Road, Kancheepuram District, subject to the other conditions that can be imposed by the respondents. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

DP -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar