IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.27637 of 2004 And W.P.M.P.No.33638 of 2004 K.Kishore Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Tahsildar Tindivanam.
2. The Village Administrative Officer Tindivanam Taluk Villupuram District. ... Respondents Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents particularly that of the 1st respondent dated 12.9.2004 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful, without jurisdiction ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice and consequently forbear the respondents herein, their men, agents, servants, etc., from in any manner disturbing the petitioner from possessing and enjoying land comprised in S.Nos.525/6, 525/10, 526/10, & 537/18 which are morefully described in the impugned proceeding of the 1st respondent dated 12.9.2004.
http://www.judis.nic.in For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan For Respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents particularly that of the 1st respondent dated 12.9.2004 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful, without jurisdiction ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice and consequently forbear the respondents herein, their men, agents, servants, etc., from in any manner disturbing the petitioner from possessing and enjoying land comprised in S.Nos.525/6, 525/10, 526/10, & 537/18 which are morefully described in the impugned proceeding of the 1st respondent dated 12.9.2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows: The petitioner is the owner Shrimp Farm in Kanthadu Village, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, in Survey Nos.525, 526 and 536 in the above village. At present the petitioner owning an extent of 6.5 acres of land. For the Shrimp business in that village, the petitioner is under threat from the busy body in the localities and from political professionals. Bowing to the pressure mounted by the local busy http://www.judis.nic.inbodies, the District Collector, Villupuram, served notice vide proceedings in Na.Ka.A5/28724/2003 dated 24.02.2004 and called the petitioner as well as the other Shrimp farm owners for enquiry into the possession of the punja poramboke lands. Being satisfied with the reasons stated by the petitioner and the other Shrimp farm owners, the District Collector, Villupuram, has not proceeded further, pursuant to the proceeding dated 24.02.2004. Pertinently, the above enquiry proceedings were preceded by the directions passed by this Court Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.22202 of 2004 dated 04.08.2004, directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner except by procedure estopped by law. But totally by-passing the proceedings of the District Collector, Villupuram, the first respondent herein had initiated proceedings under Section 7, Act III of the Madras Rules 1905, on 12.08.2004, without referring the District Collector's proceeding dated 24.02.2004. Without waiting for reply from the petitioner the first respondent again initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the Madras Act, to vacate the punja poramboke land comprised in Survey Nos.525/6, 525/6, 525/10, 526/10 and 537/18 on 12.09.2004.
Aggrieved by the said proceeding dated 12.09.2004, the writ petitioner is before this Court with this present writ petition.
4. Admittedly, as against the eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, there was an Appeal remedy available under Section 10 of the said Act. Further remedy by way of revision is http://www.judis.nic.in also available under Section 10(A) of the Act. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioner had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as against the impugned order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.09.2017 jer Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To
1. The Tahsildar Tindivanam.
2. The Village Administrative Officer Tindivanam Taluk Villupuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in M.DHANDAPANI,J.
jer W.P.No.27637 of 2004 And W.P.M.P.No.33638 of 2004 04.09.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in