- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 31 October 2023
- Bench
- S.M. Subramaniam, V. Lakshminarayanan
- Case no.
- WP(MD) 13457/2014
Judgment
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The notice issued under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., by the Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District, is under challenge in the present Writ proceedings.
2.The Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.1947, Revenue Department, dated 06.11.1989 leasing out the Government lands for developing salt pans. The period of lease was 12 years and admittedly, expired long before. The lease was not renewed and the petitioners have not utilized the Government lands for the purpose for which it was leased out. The Government lands were leased out for developing salt pans but the petitioners have utilized the Government lands for prawn aquaculture.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents made a submission that the original lessees sub let the Government lands without prior permission from the competent authorities.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that there is no possibility of developing salt pans in that lands and therefore, the lessees have developed prawn aquaculture and they are punctually paying the lease rent to the Government.
5.May that as it be, the lease period of 12 years expired long before. The petitioners without any prior permission converted the lands from salt pans to prawn aquaculture. Though the allegation of subletting was disputed, we are of the opinion that the period of lease expired and the Government lands were not utilized for the purpose for which it was leased out in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have not established any right for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for.
6.With reference to the arguments advanced that notice issued under Section 133 Cr.P.C., is untenable, this Court is of the considered opinion that such obstructions and encroachments can be removed by taking recourse under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
7.In view of the facts and circumstances, there is no infirmity in respect of the notice issued under Section 133 Cr.P.C., by the Tahsildar / 4th respondent and the petitioners are not entitled for possession and consequentially, the respondents are directed to evict the petitioners and take possession of the Government lands and utilize the same for public purposes.
8.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.)
31.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Yuva To
1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
3.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Pudukkottai.
4.The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. Yuva
31.10.2023
Case details
Parties and counsel
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.10.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2014 1.D.Arulandhu 2.Subramanian 3.Muthu 4.Arumugham 5.Rajendiran 6.Sekar 7.Anbalagan 8.Periyanayagi 9.Abulkalam Azath ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 3.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Pudukkottai. 4.The Tahsildar, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 5.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai. ...Respondents (R5 is impleaded vide Court order dated 07.08.2017 in W.P.(MD)No.13457 of 2014) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1973/A6/2014, dated 12.06.2014 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Mr.M.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.