IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:- 21.09.2007
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM
W.P. Nos.24292 of 2005 and 12852 of 2007
and
W.P.M.P. No.26534 of 2005 and
M.P. Nos.2 and 3 of 2007
1. G. Navas Ali
2. V. Pramasivam
3. S. Sheik Abdul Khader
4. Praveen Paradise
rep. by its Prop.
Abdul Kalam Azad
5. M. Govindan
6. R. Rajarathinam ... Petitioners in W.P.No.24292/2005
1. Abdul Waheeth
2. P. Sampath
3. B. Akthar Begam
4. P. Shanmugam
5. K. Murugan
6. B. Poonkodi
7. C. Ponnusamy
8. C. Parameshwari ... Petitioners in W.P.No.12852/2007
..vs..
1. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Asst. Director of
Special Village Panchayat,
Salem Region, Salem.
3. The Tahsildar,
Valappadi Taluk,
Salem District. ... Respondents in W.P. No.24292/2005
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Dept.,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem.
4. The Chairman,
Belur Town Panchayat,
Belur.
5. The Executive Officer,
Belur Town Panchayat,
Belur. ... Respondents in W.P. No.12852/2007
W.P. No.24292 of 2005 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.585/2005/T dated 22.6.2005 and quash the same and W.P. No.12852 of 2007 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Roc.No.8452/2005/A3 dated 24.2.2006, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the resolution No.6(37) dated 10.6.2004.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Sundaresh (W.P. No.24292 of 2005) Mr. V. Subbarayan, (W.P. No.12852 of 2007) For Respondents : Mr. V. Arun, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 (both W.Ps.) Mr. M. Ravi Bharathi for R4 (W.P. No.24292/2005) Mr. G. Sankaran for R4 & R5 (W.P. No.12852/2007) COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioners with the following prayer:-
(i) W.P. No.24292/2005 has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.585/2005/T dated 22.6.2005 and quash the same.
(ii) W.P. No.12852/2007 has been filed, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Roc.No.8452/2005/A3 dated 24.2.2006, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the resolution No.6(37) dated 10.6.2004.
2. Affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3. These writ petitions came to be filed before this Court on the following circumstances:-
The land measuring 3 acres 16 cents in R.S. No.13/1, Belur village came to be sub divided as 13/a, 13/b and 13/d, out of which the land measuring about 1.28.10 hectares was classified for the purpose of bus stand. Necessary resolution came to be passed by the Village Town Panchayat i.e. Belur Town Panchayat on 10.6.2004. The same was placed before the Tahsildar, who, in turn placed the matter before the District Collector and an order of sub division and classification was ordered. Accordingly, a bus stand actually came into existence. Under such circumstances, these two writ petitions, one challenging the order of the Collector ordering sub division and classification and another to quash the resolution and the order dated 24.2.2006 whereby cutting of six tamarind trees found in Survey No.13/1b, have been brought forth by the petitioners.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No.12852 of 2007, learned counsel would submit that there was no resolution passed by the councilors and in the absence of such resolution passed by the council concerned, the construction of bus stand cannot be done. Further, the order of the Tahsildar, placing the matter before the Collector and the subsequent order passed by the Collector have no legal sanction and since invoking the relevant powers, the Collector himself cannot classify and pass orders and hence it has got to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.24292 of 2005 would submit that the land measuring 3 acres and 16 cents in survey No.13/1 part, in respect of which alienation was sanctioned by Board of Revenue in favour of Salem Taluk Board with conditions imposed therein, was used for the purpose of weekly sandai only and there is no other purpose for which alienation was made. According to him, though it is true that a resolution was passed on 10.6.2004, the same was passed without considering the objections raised by the councilors. He would also submit that once there was no bus stand for the past nearly about 85 years, there is no need for taking part of the land for the purpose of constructing a bus stand.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further added that one of the petitioners is ready and willing to give one acre of land for construction of bus stand. If that could be accepted, the place where weekly sandai has been conducted need not be disturbed. Further, the total extent of land of 3.16 acres itself was not sufficient for weekly sandai. If the land measuring 1.28.0 hectares was allotted for the purpose of bus stand, the rest of the property was not definitely be sufficient for the weekly sandai. Further, the main revenue for the Town Panchayat is the fees collected in the weekly sandai. If the bus stand is allowed, it would reduce the revenue to the Panchayat. Learned counsel added further that both the resolution and the order of allotment, allotting the land for the purpose of bus stand, which was passed without any necessity or need, have got to be quashed.
7. In answer to the above, learned counsel for the respondents in short would submit that following the resolution that was passed on 10.6.2004 necessary recommendations were made by the Tahsildar. Pursuant to the same, the land measuring 3 acres 16 cents in R.S. No.13/1, Belur village came to be sub divided as 13/a, 13/b and 13/d, out of which the land measuring about 1.28.10 hectares was classified for the purpose of bus stand. Learned counsel would further add that insofar as Belur Town Panchayat is concerned, it is having the population of nearly 20,000 people. Previously there was no bus stand at all. Under the circumstances, there is a necessity for construction of bus stand, hence the proposals have been duly considered by the first respondent and concerned Authorities and accordingly the first respondent passed orders on 22.6.2005. Subsequently the classification of the land as bus stand was notified in the District Government Gazette dated 6.7.2005 under Sections 242(2) and 154(1) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Therefore, the land has been classified with effect from 6.7.2005.
8. As regards the resolution of the Panchayat is concerned, learned counsel would submit that out of 15 councilors, majority voted in favour of the resolution. Only subsequently, the petitioners and some others have given a memo of withdrawal in the representation and except these petitioners, others, who were originally before the council and voted for having the bus stand, have not changed their stand. Hence the writ petitions have got to be dismissed.
9. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by either side. The Court is of the considered opinion that both the writ petitions have got to be dismissed for more reason than one. It is not in controversy that Belur Town Panchayat has got a population of 20,000. It is an admitted position that in the long past, there is no bus stand. A bus stand is the utmost basic necessity is an admitted position. All along for the past so many decades buses are plying from roadside and people are waiting along the two sides of the road. In these circumstances, the need of the public was to be met. Hence, following a resolution that was passed by the council on 10.6.2004 for having a bus stand, necessary recommendations have been made. The matter came up before the Collector, who inspected the place and found that it was a fit case for having a bus stand in survey No.13/1 which was sub divided into a, b and c, out of which 28 cents was allotted for the bus stand. It is also an admitted position that already the bus stand is functioning for few years.
10. Now the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that one of the petitioners is ready to give one acre of land for having the bus stand. At the same time, it is brought to the notice by the learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities, after inspection, that the property so offered was found not suitable and thereafter the classification of sub division was made and also allotment has been made. Further, in a given case like this, the Court has to look into public interest to determine the genuineness of the resolution passed with majority vote and by the council, who are representatives of the people. The Court is able to see that resolutions are passed by the majority. It found that the land is a fit land and a suitable place to locate the bus stand.
11. In these circumstances, when the public need is to be looked into and determined, which in the opinion of the Court is not in favour of the petitioners. In the instant case, especially when the issue is location of a bus stand, whereas the petitioners’ stand is for location of a place to run the weekly sandai. It is not a fact in dispute before this Court that out of 3.16 acres, only an extent of 1.28.10 hectares was classified for the purpose of bus stand and rest of the land is available for the weekly sandai. Apart from this, the Authorities, including the Collector, had conducted an inspection pursuant to the resolution, taken a view about the viability of the place for location of a bus stand. In that background, the Court is of the opinion that there is nothing on record to take contra decision than the one taken by the Collector. Under the circumstances, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs.
21.09.2007
Index:- Yes.
Internet:- Yes.
ssa.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
ssa.
To
1. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Asst. Director of
Special Village Panchayat,
Salem Region, Salem.
3. The Tahsildar,
Valappadi Taluk,
Salem District.
4. The Secretary to the
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Dept.,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
5. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem. W.P. Nos.24292 of 2005 and
12852 of 2007 and
6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, connected W.P.M.Ps.
Salem.
7. The Chairman,
Belur Town Panchayat,
Belur.
8. The Executive Officer,
Belur Town Panchayat,
Belur.
21.09.2007