Madras High CourtWP/25540/2021dismissed

N.Chandrasekar S/O. Narayanappa v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2023-09-11Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.09.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU N.Chandrasekar ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat, Chennai 09.

2. The District Collector Krishnagiri District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Krishnagiri District.

4. The Tahsildar (Revenue) Hosur Taluk.

5. The Block Development Officer Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

6. The Village Administrative Officer Alur Village, Hosur Taluk Krishnagiri District.

7. Srinivasan ..

Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 herein to remove the illegal occupation made by the 7th respondent herein in respect of the property situated at Krishnagiri District, Hosur Taluk, Alur Village, in Survey Nos.714(1A) to an extent of 0.73.5 Ares, 714(1B) to an extent of 05.5 Ares, 714(1C) to an extent of 01 Ares, 714(2A) to an extent of 1.82 Ares, 714(2B) to an extent of 09.0 Ares and in Survey Nos.786, 792, 793, 796, 798, 799, 800, 801 and 809 to an extents of 11.30.0 Ares on the basis of representation dated 03.09.2021 sent by the petitioner herein.

For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramar For the Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 6 Mr.V.Sanjeevi for Respondent-7

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.B.Ramar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 6 and Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel for the seventh

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seventh respondent is running a illegal crusher unit in S.No.714/1A. The said property is a government poramboke land. So also, S.Nos.714/1B, 714/1C, 714/2A, 714/2B, 786, 792, 793, 796, 798, 799, 800, 801 and

809. In S.No.806 also, no permission is obtained from the Environment Department.

3. Counters have been filed by the second respondent and seventh respondent. As far as S.No.809 (Part 1) and (Part 2) is concerned, lease has expired in 2019 and thereafter, partly water is stagnated in the said land. However, in respect of S.No.809 (Part 3), lease is granted in favour of the seventh respondent and the said lease is in operation till 2029. Environment clearance is granted on 27.08.2018. The same is stated in the affidavit filed by the second respondent. As far as the other lands are concerned, the second respondent admits that the same are patta lands of the seventh

4. It appears that the present writ petition is misconceived and does not espouse the public cause, inasmuch as the seventh respondent is holding S.No.809 (Part 3) under lease and other lands are his patta lands. The affidavit of the second respondent also suggests that there is no encroachment made for carrying out the crushing business. However, the affidavit of the second respondent states that there is some violation on the part of the seventh respondent and for that, action would be taken against the seventh

5. In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 11.09.2023 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No kpl