Madras High Court
Raiser Pasumai Development Limited vs The District Collector on 19 June, 2017
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P.(MD)No.6028 of 2017
and
WMP(MD)Nos.4754 and 4755 of 2017
Raiser Pasumai Development Limited,
represented by its Director,
A.Sivakumar : Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Assistant Director,
Geology and Mining,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Tashildar,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office No-II,
Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai District.
6.G.Muthukrishnan
7.Senthilkumar
8.Naglakshmi
9.Venkat Reddy,
Project Organiser,
M/s.KNR Constructions Limited,
5-253, Linga Garden,
Netaji Nagar,
Manamadurai,
SivagangaiDistrict. : Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call the records of
proceedings of the 1st respondent herein, in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.M.2/304/2016, dated 13.02.2017 and quash the same and consequently,
restrain the 9th respondent and his men from quarrying in petitioner's land
in S.F.No.356/3 at V.Pudukkulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai
District.
!For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthilkumar
^For R1 to R5 : Mr.G.Muthukannan
Government Advocate
For R6 to R9 : No appearance
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.M.2/304/2016, dated 13.02.2017, quash the same and consequently, restrain the 9th respondent and his men from doing quarry operation in the petitioner's land in S.F.No.356/3 at V.Pudukkulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk & District, whereby, the first respondent granted permission to the ninth respondent to carry on quarry activities in the subject matter of the land.
2. The case of the petitioner is that subject land which is referred to in this writ petition belongs to him and therefore, he prayed that the ninth respondent should not do any quarrying activities in his lands.
3. Per contra, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the 9th respondent has already given a letter of undertaking to the 2nd respondent stating that as the lease period has already come to an end, they are not interested in doing the quarry operation in the subject matter of the land which is referred to in the writ petition and in support of his contention, he has also produced the copy of the letter written by the ninth respondent, dated 16.06.2017 before this court.
4. Though very many averments have been raised by the petitioner, the fact remains that the ninth respondent themselves have written a letter to the official respondents to the effect that they are not interested in quarrying activities granted to them, as the period of lease has already been over. Therefore, this Court deems it fit no more further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition and this writ petition is liable to be closed.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
To,
1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.
2.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
4.The Tashildar, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
5.The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office No-II, Sivagangai Town, Sivagangai District.
.