Madras High CourtWP/24710/2012disposed of

K.Nagooran v. The State

2019-11-28Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN W.P. No.24710 of 2012 and M.P.No.3 of 2012

1. K. Nagooran

2. Duraikannu

3. Pitchai

4. Arani

5. Kalapan

6. Selvam

7. Murthy

8. Maghesh

9. Siva

10. Venkateshan

11. Ezhumalai

12. Sengeni

13. Muniyan

14. Kuppan

15. Sudhakar

16. Sakthivel

17. Ponnuvel

18. Karthick

19. Gengappan

20. Panneer

21. Madhan

22. Jegan

23. Sakthivel

24. Raghu

25. Murugan

26. Selvam

27. Ettiappan

28. Sankar

29. Ellappan

30. Mohan

31. Gopi

32. Neelagandan

33. Nagooran

34. Mannudevan

35. Muthu

36. Shanmugam

37. Kuppan

38. Ramesh

39. Sambath

40. Vasu ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The State rep. By The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3. The Director General of Police, No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai 4.

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

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhuranthagam Range, Kancheepuram District.

6. The Inspector of Police, G-6, Cheyyur Police Station, Cheyyur, Kancheepuram District.

7. Sivanesan

8. Kandan

9. Sivakumar

10. Rajendran

11. Ponnurangam .. Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant just and adequate compensation to the petitioners and their community members.

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Sunil Kumar For Respondents : Mr. Zakir Hussain, Gov. Advocate, for R1 to R6.

: Mr. Muthumani Duraisamy, for R7 to R11 : Mr. S. Udayakumar, Advocate Commissioner

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to pay compensation for the damages caused to the fishing net and also other articles.

2. Earlier notice was ordered to the respondents.

3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing , the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents 7 to 11 submitted that this is a dispute between two fishermen communities residing in Thazhuthali Kuppam, Cheyyur Taluk, pending writ petition, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a compromise memo to that effect. The memo of compromise is duly signed by the petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 and their respective counsel. Apart from that 38 persons, who are relatives of the respondents 7 to 11, have also signed as witnesses to this memo.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 4(Arani) and 27(Ettiappan) died pending writ petition.

5. The said statement of the learned counsel is recorded.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties further submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of as per the terms of the compromise memo and the terms 1 to 4 of the compromise memo reads as follows :- " i. The petitioners and the contesting respondents agree that they shall take immediate steps to file necessary petitions before this Hon'ble Court seeking to quash all the four FIR's. On filing of such applications by the accused persons, the defacto complainants in the respective cases shall appear before this Hon'ble Court and also file necessary affidavits expressing no objection for quashing the FIR.

ii. The petitioners and the contesting respondents unanimously agree that hereafter K. Elumalai S/o. Kinnappan, a member of the contesting respondents' community will not carryout fishing alone in the Kazhu Vizhi river in the village and take the benefits for himself. Hereafter the petitioners and

the contesting respondents will have equal right in fishing in the said river; parties agree that they will carry out fishing on daily turn, namely one day for the petitioners' community and one day for the contesting respondents' community. Parties further agree that they shall use only appropriate fishing net for the respective seasons.

iii. The parties agree that the petitioners and the contesting respondents and their relatives will take necessary steps to bifurcate the existing fishermen Co-operative Society at Mudaliar Kuppam and will take charge of the respective new societies.

iv. The parties unanimously agree that in the event of any dispute in future between any of the individual member of the respective communities, relating to their personnel issues, Panchayat shall not be convened to settle or discuss about the said personnel issues. Instead, the individuals shall be instructed to approach the government officials or the respective police stations or courts to settle their disputes. Unless the said individual is a family member of the office bearer of the community panchayat heads, the panchayat heads also shall not accompany the individuals to the government office or the police stations."

7. Considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above compromise memo. The said compromise memo shall form part of the order. No costs.

8. Mr. Udayakumar, learned Advocate Commissioner submits that he was appointed as Advocate Commissioner by the order of this Court dated 04.12.2012. and the District Collector/2nd respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards his remuneration. He further submits that so far the Commissioner fee has not been paid to him.

9. Hence, the second respondent/District Collector is directed to pay the Advocate Commissioner fee on or before

09.12.2019. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mrp To

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.