Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S.Subramani Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented

S.Subramani vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 03, 2013
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/965213

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.Subramani

Respondent

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented

Excerpt

.....the encroachments in new r.s.no.378, old r.s.no.350 in pullampadi village, lalgudi taluk, trichy district and cancel the classification of the area as natham and reclassify the same area as thailakulam as it existed before. 2.it is seen from the facts herein that the petitioner is the proprietor of m/s.vel industries, engaged in the business of manufacturing of lime and lime chemicals. it is stated that the petitioner is operating three limestone mines in s.nos.46 and 50 in venkatachalapuram and r.s.nos.347 and 350 at pullambadi villages. it is stated that limestone is available in r.s.no.350 (old) which is adjacent to the said area. r.s.no.350 is a water tank and as early as 1990, government had issued orders not to assign any mineral bearing lands for any purpose. however, in 1998, the area had been classified as natham and patta had been given to several encroachers. considering the fact that r.s.no.350 is a tank situated 500 metres within the mineral bearing areas, it has been classified as "danger zone" and it is statutorily prohibited for any kind of settlement. 3.the petitioner made a representation before the district collector, tiruchirappalli. in the proceedings of the joint commissioner (land), land administration department, chennai dated 14.03.2001, we find that the joint commissioner had instructed the district collector to stop further issuance of patta in s.nos.378 and 350 which is said to be very close to the mines in operation. that was decided on the representation made by the petitioner as early as 08.03.2001. the joint commissioner also wrote a letter on 04.04.2001 in this regard to district revenue officer, tiruchirappalli. however, nothing went serious in this matter and according to the petitioner, indiscriminate grant of patta was made. this led to the petitioner writing a letter to the chief minister as early as 22.06.2001. thereafter on 13.08.2001, again the petitioner wrote a letter to the district revenue officer,.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

03. 04/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P.(MD)No.1637 of 2007 S.Subramani .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Mines and Minerals, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai-5. 4.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli. 5.Parvathi, C/o.Chinnasamy 6.Vijaya 7.Marimuthu 8.Arukkani 9.Ammani 10.Malarmani 11.Periasamy 12.Kaliamoorthy 13.Yesuraj 14.Chinnathambi 15.Venkatachalam 16.Alamelu 17.Iyyavu 18.Sekar 19.Karuppaiah 20.Parvathi, C/o.Kaliyan 21.Maheswari (Respondents 5 to 21 impleaded as per order of this Couirt dated 22.3.2007 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 in W.P.(MD) No.1637 of 2007) .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachments in New R.S.No.378, Old R.S.No.350 in Pullampadi Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District and cancel the classification of the area as Natham and reclassify the same area as Thailakulam as it existed before. !For petitioner ... Mr.K.Govindarajan ^For respondents... Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.GP for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5 to R21 :ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J.) The petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the encroachments in New R.S.No.378, Old R.S.No.350 in Pullampadi Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District and cancel the classification of the area as Natham and reclassify the same area as Thailakulam as it existed before. 2.It is seen from the facts herein that the petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s.Vel Industries, engaged in the business of manufacturing of lime and lime chemicals. It is stated that the petitioner is operating three limestone mines in S.Nos.46 and 50 in Venkatachalapuram and R.S.Nos.347 and 350 at Pullambadi Villages. It is stated that limestone is available in R.S.No.350 (Old) which is adjacent to the said area. R.S.No.350 is a water tank and as early as 1990, Government had issued orders not to assign any mineral bearing lands for any purpose. However, in 1998, the area had been classified as natham and patta had been given to several encroachers. Considering the fact that R.S.No.350 is a tank situated 500 metres within the mineral bearing areas, it has been classified as "Danger Zone" and it is statutorily prohibited for any kind of settlement. 3.The petitioner made a representation before the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. In the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner (Land), Land Administration Department, Chennai dated 14.03.2001, we find that the Joint Commissioner had instructed the District Collector to stop further issuance of patta in S.Nos.378 and 350 which is said to be very close to the mines in operation. That was decided on the representation made by the petitioner as early as 08.03.2001. The Joint Commissioner also wrote a letter on 04.04.2001 in this regard to District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli. However, nothing went serious in this matter and according to the petitioner, indiscriminate grant of patta was made. This led to the petitioner writing a letter to the Chief Minister as early as 22.06.2001. Thereafter on 13.08.2001, again the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli. Again in the year 2004 the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli and in 2005, he wrote a letter to the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. Even in 2006, the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. Apparently, the representations made have not received due consideration. It is seen from the representations made that a copy was marked to the Commissioner. Since no action has been taken so far for reclassification of the lands, the present writ petition is filed. 4.It is seen from the proceedings dated 17.05.2001 of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli to the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai that action has been taken by the District Backward Class authorities for acquiring lands to give the encroachers alternative sites and that the patta already issued would be cancelled after selecting suitable lands after observing the usual formalities. But so far, no action has been taken. 5.In the circumstances, taking into consideration the safety aspect in this matter, the Commissioner (Land Administration), Ezhilagam, Chennai, is hereby directed to consider the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this writ petition for reclassification of the lands, as stated in the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli dated 17.05.2001 in RC.B2/32854/2000. Accordingly, suitable lands for the use of the encroachers as alternative sites be expedited so that the mining operation in the nearby sites does not endanger those residing in R.S.No.350, which is stated to be a water tank. The petitioner is hereby directed to make a fresh representation apart from enclosing copies of the earlier representations, before the Commissioner (Land Administration), Chennai, within a period of ten days from today. On such representation being made, the Commissioner shall look into the facts projected therein and pass appropriate orders as to the reclassification of the lands. 6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 is closed. No costs. KM To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Mines and Minerals, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai-5. 4.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial