Murugesan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.01.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.5178 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.4633 of 2016 Murugesan .. Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tuticorin District.

2.The District Forest Officer, State District Forest Office, Tuticorin District.

... Respondents PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Va/3691/2011 dated 07.10.2015 and quash the same and further Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to pass necessary orders recognizing the petitioner's right and possession in survey No.203/2, to an extent of 37 Acres 21 cents, Arasur Village, Santhankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District as per the provisions of Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram for Mr.D.Nallathambi For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 07.10.2015, rejecting the petitioner's request for recognizing his right and possession in S.No.203/02 measuring to an extent of 37 Acres 21 cents, Arasur Village, Santhankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District, as per the provisions of Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

2. Heard Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed

before this Court.

3.

It is seen that the petitioner claims possession over the abovesaid land and seeks protection under Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get such relief or not, is not for this Court, at this stage, to consider and decide, since it is for the concerned official respondent, namely, the second respondent herein to look into the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

4.

In fact, the petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P(MD)No.16979 of 2015 and sought for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein to consider his representation dated 03.07.2015, wherein and whereby he sought for recognition of his right in the abovesaid land. It is further seen that an interim order came to be passed on 18.09.2015 by this Court directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.07.2015, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Consequent upon such order, the present impugned order was issued by the second respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner. 5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order was not in accordance with the direction issued by this Court earlier in W.P(MD)No.16979 of 2015, since no personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

6.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is not in a position to state as to whether the personal hearing, as directed earlier, was given to the petitioner or not. Even the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent is totally silent about the said compliance. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, even though such direction was already issued by this Court on 18.09.2015 itself in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned only on the ground of violation of the order passed earlier, namely, absence of personal hearing. 7.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for passing fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be done by the second respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court reiterates once again that it is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner with regard to his alleged possession over the land in dispute, as it is for the second respondent to consider the said claim on its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(cs-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tuticorin District.

2.The District Forest Officer, State District Forest Office, Tuticorin District.

+1 cc to Mr. D.NALLATHAMBI, Advocate, Sr.No:423 +1cc to M/S Special Government Pleader, Sr No.469 skn MAS/MSK-TTN:20.01.2017: 3P/5C W.P(MD)No.5178 of 2016 03.01.2017