I.Amalan v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6748 & 6749 of 2020 Fr.I.Amalan, Parish Priest, Pudukottai Parsh, Thoothukudi District.
Through his Authorised Agent G.Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, 2.The Sub Collector, 3.The Thasildar, 4.The District Registrar (Admin) Registration Department, 5.The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai Sub Registrar Office, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District.
6.The Chief Engineer (Building) Public Works Department, Chennai.
7.Mr.Anthony Michael, S/o. Savarimuthu Nadar, Sirupadu Savariyarpuram, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents 1/5
(7th respondent impleaded as per order of this Court, dated 04.09.2020) Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.D3/31771/2014 passed by the first respondent dated 20.02.2020 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram For Mr.P.R.Prithviraj For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Additional Government Pleader For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh Additional Government Pleader For R-7 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for Ajmal Associates
O R D E R
Mr.Anthony Michael, S/o. Savarimuthu Nadar, Sirupadu Savariyarpuram, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District, is suo-motu impleaded as seventh respondent in this writ petition. Registry is directed to make necessary changes in the cause title.
2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.02.2020, whereby, the District Collector had issued orders for transfer of 20 cents of lands in Survey No.320/4 in Kumaragiri Village, Thoothukudi Taluk, for the purpose of enabling the construction of the Office of the Sub-Registrar. 3.This order has been put to challenge in this writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that earlier the District Collector had passed an order, dated 25.11.2017, directing the construction of very same SubRegistrar Office at Mudivaithanenthal Village in Survey No.1567A/1 and that there is absolutely no justification for rescinding the said order and for choosing the site in question. According to him, the site in question has been classified as 'Grama Natham' in the revenue records. The revenue record indicates that the existence of a water tank as well as blocks of school buildings constructed in the said land.
5. The learned counsel states that though the petitioner herein had earlier filed a writ petition in WP(MD) No.3657 of 2020 and the same suffered a dismissal, the petitioner had already filed a review petition, but it is yet to be numbered.
2/5
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the stand of the Government that the site in question is a vacant land. According to him, the land in question belongs to the petitioner's Church and that therefore, the Office of the Sub Registrar, ought not to be constructed therein.
7.The learned counsel also strongly contested the factual correctness of the findings rendered in W.P.(MD) No.3657 of 2020. He reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this petition. According to him, the Church is ready to offer an alternative site where the proposed construction can come up.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition does not warrant any interference.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the impleaded seventh respondent put up a spirited defence in support of the order impugned in the writ petition.
10. I carefully heard the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The District Collector, Thoothukudi in the impugned order dated 20.02.2020, had stated that the proposed construction can come up over 20 cents of land in Survey No.320 / 4 in Kumaragiri Village. The impugned order is not a cryptic one. It is fairly elaborate and detailed. The four boundaries of the site in question have been accurately narrated. The site in question is bounded on the north by Survey No.320/5, on the south by an abandoned school building, on the east by water tank and toilets and on the west by two tombs. If these descriptions given in the impugned order are taken note of, I can straight-away come to the conclusion that it does not in anyway affect the stand now taken by the petitioner's counsel. It is not as if Survey No.320/4 measures only 20 cents. It is obviously of a much larger extent.
11.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.03.2020 in W.P(MD) No.3657 of 2020 had given a categorical finding that Survey No.320/4 is a Government property. The petitioner's counsel may at liberty to contend that the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench is factually erroneous, but then, judicial discipline demands that I go by the findings of the Hon'ble Division Bench. I have to necessarily to proceed on the basis that the land comprised in Survey No.320/4 is a Government property. 12.When it is a Government property, it is absolutely open to the authorities to put up construction on the said Government property.
13. The proposed construction is going to come up within 3/5
the aforesaid four boundaries. That apart, there is yet another order dated 02.03.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.2524 of 2020. The impleaded seventh respondent was the writ petitioner therein. He wanted the District Collector to construct the Pudukkotai Sub Registrar Office only at Kumaragiri Village and not elsewhere. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the District Collector had decided to retain Pudukkottai Sub-Registrar Office at Kumaragiri Village, Tuticorin District. Recording the said contention, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
14.The petitioner herein challenges the order impugned in the writ petition as unreasonable and violative of the petitioner's civil rights. I am afraid that both these contentions will not lie in view of the Division Bench decision referred to above. The petitioner states that one more public hearing should be accorded. In fact, in the impugned order, it is mentioned that before taking the impugned decision, public notification was made, but then, no objection was received in response thereto. Inasmuch as the construction is to come up only on a Government property. The petitioner cannot claim any legal injury as such. I find no ground to interfere.
15.The writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CSII) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rm Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
To:
1.The District Collector, 4/5
2.The Sub Collector, 3.The Thasildar, 4.The District Registrar (Admin) Registration Department, 5.The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai Sub Registrar Office, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District.
6.The Chief Engineer (Building) Public Works Department, Chennai.
+1 CC to M/s.Special Government Pleader( SR-16073[F] dated 07/09/2020 ) 04.09.2020 KB(10.09.2020) 5P 8C 5/5