BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04/12/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU WRIT PETITION (MD) No.10064 of 2007 R.Muthukoori ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramnad District. 3.The Commissioner, Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Paramakudi, Ramnad District. 4.M.Nagarajan ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to keep the Kanmai (Tank) water catchment area situated in S.No.72, 73/1, 70/6 and 71/9 measuring total extent of 6.65.5 hectares of Aavarenthal Village, Nenmeni Group, Paramakudi Taluk in its original position without being any encroachment by preserving or keeping the tank to store the water in its full capacity up to the water catchments area to enable the Aavarenthal Village agriculturists for irrigating their patta lands from Aavarenthal Kanmai Water. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu ^ :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.PALANIVELU,J)
The petitioner is a resident of Aavarenthal Village in Paramakudi
Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. It is his main grievance that the 4th
respondent has made encroachments to an extent of 1.35.0 Hectares of Kanmoi
Poramboke in Survey No.70/6, which is a part of Aavarenthal Kanmoi, on the
strength of “B” memo issued by the Revenue Department. It is further stated
that various lands belonging to the villagers are getting water for irrigation
from the said Aavarenthal Kanmoi and if the 4th respondent is allowed to
continue to encroach a major portion of the Kanmoi area, the water storage will
get diminished and the lands would not get sufficient water from the Kanmoi and
thereby the villagers will get prejudiced.
2.Even according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent has laid a
suit in O.S.No.147/2005 on the file of the District Munsif Courts, Paramakudi,
in which the some of
the villagers and the respondents 1 to 3 herein were also defendants. The suit
was for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 4th respondent in the
suit property, namely 3.30 Acres of land in the above said Survey No.70/6 in
Aavarenthal Village. After full trial, the suit was decreed on 18.09.2007 as
prayed for granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the 4th
respondent.
3.When a civil court decree has been validly passed, which is in
force, it cannot be varied or made as a nullity by this Court in a public
interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
civil court is finally adjudicating the rights of the parties to the suit. The
standard of proof required therein is also entirely different. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by means of
the decree, the rights of the villagers, including the petitioner would get
affected and hence the 6th, 7th and 8th defendants in the suit who are
respondents 1 to 3 herein may be directed to prefer appeal from the said decree.
This is out of the scope of this petition. The petitioner has to seek remedy
before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law and he is not entitled
to any such relief in this petition.
5.With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
gb.
To:
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Paramakudi Taluk Office,
Paramakudi, Ramnad District.
3.The Commissioner,
Paramakudi Panchayat Union,
Paramakudi, Ramnad District.