Savarimuthu v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.05.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.12458 of 2019 Savarimuthu ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul - 624 004.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul - 624 003.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District - 624 301.

5. V.Nagaraj

6. S.Muthuraj

7. P.Karupanasamy

8. C.Murugan @ Sentil

9. Subbaiah ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 29.03.2019 seeking strict implementation of the provisions of the peace committee meeting held on 04.12.2018 and to release the common place for common use of all faith within the time as stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.John Vincent For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R4

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of relief to be granted in the writ petition, notice to respondents 5 to 9 is dispensed with.

2.It appears that in the village of Perumalkoilpatti in Athur Taluk, Dindigul District, there is a dispute between two groups of people, both belonging to same community but belonging to different religion, with regard to the usage of a common land. The petitioner's counsel states that the civil Court's decree is to the effect that the land in question belongs to the Government. His grievance is that the private respondents herein are attempting to usurp the lands for their own use. It appears that a temple festival is to be held in the month of June, 2019. It is made clear that the temple festival will not be stalled, but it shall be allowed to go on.

But then, the petitioner's counsel points out that a peace committee meeting was earlier held and that it appears that the parties have agreed to abide by the outcome of the civil proceedings. The petitioner's counsel draws my attention to the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.231 of 2009, dated 23.01.2019, which had gone against the private respondents herein. Therefore, even while holding that the proposed temple festival shall go on, the second respondent is directed to convene one more peace committee meeting to resolve the outstanding issues between the two groups. Such a peace committee meeting shall be convened by the second respondent within a period of ten days and an appropriate decision be taken. 3.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul - 624 004.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul - 624 003.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District - 624 301.

+1cc to M/S.A.JOHN VINCENT, Advocate, Sr.No.66381 +1cc to M/S SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, Sr.No.66646 W.P.(MD)No.12458 of 2019 29.05.2019 BUC(26/06/2019)3P/7C