Madras High Court
Kolandaivelu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2011
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 11-01-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.48925 of 2006 and W.P.No.7911 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Writ Petition No.48925 of 2006: Kolandaivelu .. Petitioner in both the writ petitions. Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Land Administration and Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 3.The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 5. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Attur Road, Rasipuram. 6.The Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. 7.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural (Operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. 8.Sengottuvel .. Respondents in W.P.No.48925 of 2006 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Land Administration and Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 4. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Attur Road, Rasipuram. 5. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Rasipuram, Namakkal District. 6. The President, Village Panchayat, Ponkurichi Village, Melkalpalayam (Post), Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. 7.Sengottuvel .. Respondents in W.P.No.7911 of 2007. Prayer in W.P.No.48925 of 2006: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in Vu.Mi.Po/Ei & Pa/Kusapa/Va.Thu/Ko.Kattu/Aa.No.131/2006, dated 11.9.2006 and Ka.No.Vu.Cho.Pa/Ei&Pa/Pura/EraKa.Ac/Aa.No.205/ 2006, dated 11.9.2006, and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the electricity service by change over switch arrangement for E.B.Connection No.272/5H.P/TF IV for the well and bore well situated in Survey No.56/1, at P.Kalpalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. Prayer in W.P.No.7911 of 2007: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.235/2007 The 3, dated 6.2.2007 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mathivanan For Respondents : Ms.C.K.Vishnu Priya (AGP) (R1 to R5) in W.P.No.48925 Mr.J.Ravindran (R6 & R7) of 2006 Mr.M.Muthappan (R8) For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Vishnu Priya (AGP) (R1 to R5) in W.P.No.7911 Mr.M.Muthappan (R7) of 2007 O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petitions is that the electricity connection to the bore well in Survey No.56/1 at P.Kalpalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, had been disconnected by the seventh respondent, without conducting a proper inspection of the bore well and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that this Court, by its order, dated 9.7.2004, made in W.P.No.38715 of 2003, had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, to inspect the bore well in question and to find out, as to whether it is situate in the patta land belonging to the petitioner or in the poramboke land belonging to the Government. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, had given a report, dated 22.8.2006, stating that the bore well in question is situate in S.F.No.54, which is a poramboke land and not in 56/1, as claimed by the petitioner. In the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, it has been stated that the petitioner was present at the time of the inspection and survey.
4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 22.8.2006, had not been served on the petitioner.
5. Ms.C.K.Vishnu Priya, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Revenue Divisional Officer, had been directed to serve a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 22.8.2006, on the petitioner. In view of the said direction, a copy of the said report had been given to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
6. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. However, it goes without saying that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 22.8.2006, if so advised, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law.
csh To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Land Administration and Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Namakkal, Namakkal District.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.
5. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Attur Road, Rasipuram.
6.The Executive Engineer, (Operation and Maintenance), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
7.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural (Operation and Maintenance) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
8. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
9. The President, Village Panchayat, Ponkurichi Village, Melkalpalayam (Post), Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District