Madras High Court
A.Muthu V. The Secretary To Government vs The Secretary To Government on 22 April, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 22.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2014
(Through Video Conferencing)
1. A.Muthu
2. R.Rangasamy
3. P.Selvaraj
4. D.Palaniselvam
5. K.N.R.Murukkan
6. B.Raji Rajaambal
7. N.Karupayya
8. R.Kaliappan
9. L.Thirumoorthy
10.Selill Chandra
11.T.Ramalingam
12.Dharmalingam
13.K.Ganesan
14.A.Pandian
15.Rahmadbee
16.M.Faruck
17.A.Rakmadulla
18.A.Settu
19.M.Asrap Ali
20.M.Dhanapal
21.R.Govindraj
22.K.Raji
23.P.Jayaraj
24.A.Femila Sudha Johnson
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
25.S.Kottamalai
26.G.Bakiyalakshmi
27.Kumaramurugan
28.Lilli Micheal Raj
29.N.Gopal
30.G.Jayakumar
31.A.Shantha
32.M.Sundar
33.John Basha
34.A.Karuppaiya
35.K.Amsavalli
36.K.Sundaramoorthy
37.R.Mariathangam
38.Kannammbal
39.M.Abdul Aziz
40.P.Jamal
41.M.Pavamoithian
42.Bhathurnisha
43.V.Sundaramoorthy
44.Philomina
45.M.Bakiyam
46.N.Samsutheen
47.Umal Muth Abiya
48.K.Thanagavel
49.R.Chelladurai
50.Vagidhabi
51.K.Senthil
52.P.Yoga
53.Y.Arokiyamary
54.C.Jaya
55.V.Natarajan
56.D.Thangaraj
57.P.Thangavel
58.R.Vijayarani
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
59.K.Loganathan
60.Melkiuraj
61.K.Gandhi
62.K.Murthy
63.D.Jayaselan
64.M.Barnabass
65.M.Rangaswamy
66.Perumal
67.S.Senthilkumar
68.C.Karthikeyan
69.M.Arumugam
70.M.Puspam
71.S.Chandrasekar
72.K.Elumali
73.K.Murugesan
74.B.Ramdass
75.A.Russia Begam
76.M.Gnanammal
77.T.V.Joseph
78.S.Pasupathi
79.M.Gopinath
80.R.Subramani
81.R.Guruvan
82.G.Sivanathan
83.Devi
84.R.Pappa
85.M.Babu
86.R.Mary
87.Reginamary
88.M.Kalavathi
89.T.Murugesan
90.Y.Arokiadas
91.G.Udhaykumar
92.G.Karthikeyan
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
93.K.Indhrarani
94.D.Rajamani
95.J.Saroja
96.J.Murugesan
97.Ayyappan
98.K.Gurusamy
99.A.Thavaselvan
100.S.Arockiasamy
101.Loothiya
102.Dheenadhayalan
103.M.Mahalakshmi
104.Jerina mohammed
105.S.Kamala
106.R.Rajeshwari
107.A.Vellaisamy
108.R.Selvam
109.Shajakhan
110.B.Raj
111.G.Vallimazhil
112.M.Kalavathi
113.Bhasheer Ahmed
114.L.Sekar
115.D.Chidambaram
116.R.Kumar
117.M.Mohan Babu
118.L.Agustin
119.E.Asssnammal
120.K.Pappa
121.R.Sangili Muthu
122.C.Subramanian
123.M.Nazir Basha
124.S.Venkatesan
125.R.Vellaisamy
126.U.Dharmaraj
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
127.R.Ramasamy
128.R.Rathinam
129.R.Palaniammal
130.B.Chandran
131.T.Veeramohan
132.D.Vellaiammal
133.R.Duraisamy
134.Ilayaraja
135.V.Ramasamy
136.M.Lakshmi
137.R.Rangan
138.R.Raji Ramthai
139.P.Indrarani
140.V.Palanimuthu
141.R.Chinnammal
142.R.Thanga Raj Chitra
143.R.Chandran
144.M.Kaveri
145.M.Sankar
146.R.Chandran
147.M.Dhanapal
148.S.Palanisamy
149.P.Murugesan
150.C.Muthu
151.C.Bageyam
152.T.Kuppammal
153.M.Pandiammal
154.R.Rajammal
155.V.Kalyani
156.N.Gurusamy
157.T.Thangavel
158.N.Rangasamy
159.Thangaiya
160.M.Akbar Basha
5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
161.R.Chandran
162.P.Lakshmanan
163.Y.George,
164.A.Abdul Rahim
165.A.Noortheen
166.B.Muthu
167.C.Balu
168.Muthu
169.V.Pathran
170.K.Palanisamy
171.C.Paramasivam
172.C.Ramakrishnan
173.S.Roshanbi
174.I.Kulshanabbi
175.N.Puttiammal
176.K.Puchiammal
177.R.Murugan
178.P.Selvaraj
179.R.Thangavel
180.R.Dhasan
181.V.Kannusamy
182.U.Lakshmi
183.S.Malik
184.P.Gurusamy
185.K.Selvi
186.R.Kannaiyan
187.K.Subramani
188.R.Gopal
189.R.Bakialakshmi
190.M.Sakthivel
191.M.Murugesan
192.J.Shajini
193.L.Parvathi
194.G.Kumar
6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
195.P.Lakshmanan
196.P.Mani
197.T.Mani
198.S.Saroja
199.D.Ramasamy
200.R.Jeeva
201.R.Annamalai
202.R.Jeeva
203.P.Murugan
204.Bangaruthangammal
205.P.Selvaraj
206.P.Saroja
207.P.Lakshmanan Podi
208.R.Sarasu
209.B.Ganesan
210.S.Murugan
211.R.Muthulingam
212.Chinnakkannu
213.Boopathy
214.R.Ayyavoo
215.L.Raju
216.K.Ananthan
217.R.Thirumali
218.V.Ramakkal
219.R.Raja
220.M.Palaniammal
221.T.Rangan
222.R.Ramayyi
223.S.Prema
224.R.Dasan
225.R.Chinnakka @ Chinnamani
226.N.Muthumalar
227.M.Kumar
228.P.Ramesh
7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
229.P.Vijayalakshmi
230.R.Veerasamy
231.R.Settu
232.R.Palanisamy
233.D.Ramasamydevi
234.R.Vadivel
235.P.Devaraj
236.K.Banumathi
237.M.Kumar
238.R.Ramasamy
239.K.Manigandan
240.S.Thomas Mary
241.N.Ruckmani Ammal
242.J.Jareena
243.K.Ravi
244.Sabeeya Beevi
245.R.Balu
246.C.Thangavel
247.V.Perumalsamy
248.P.Karthi
249.T.Muruganantham
250.M.Shajathi
251.K.Shyeed Munnu
252.R.Chinraj
253.P.Manivannan
254.V.Kanayya
255.P.Amutha
256.A.V.Balu
257.R.Thangadurai
258.M.Namashivayam
259.K.Venkateswaran
260.R.Noordeen
261.M.Amutha
262.P.Velu
8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
263.V.Sundaramurthy
264.R.Chandra
265.K.Ramesh
266.Sonamuthu
267.S.Amirkhan
268.I.Antony Saranraj
269.R.M.Vijaya Amirtharaj
270.K.Anandkrishnan
271.G.Thenmozhi
272.Thulasi
273.R.Lakshmi
274.R.Chennadurai
275.Sivakumar
276.P.Vijayakanth
277.J.Latha
278.M.Syeedabebe
279.Vijaya
280.Praveenkumar
281.P.Nagarajan
282.Muthukumar
283.R.R.S.Murugan
284.M.Jonny Sathyaraj
285.R.Manimaran
286.R.Ramachandran
287.M.Karupusamy
288.K.Ragini
289.R.Rajammal
290.R.Sekar
291.D.Surendran
292.K.Mani
293.K.Sarasu
294.Farook
295.R.Kannamma
296.Karthika
9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
297.A.Susaimanikkam
298.Veerasamy
299.J.Antony Raj
300.Shajith Basha
301.P.M.Saleem
302.Paritha
303.R.Senthilkumar
304.R.Jayaraman
305.Mohammed Rafiq
306.R.Subbulakshmi
307.Kumari
308.D.Muthu
309.Sakunthala
310.A.Maruthapillai
311.M.Selvaraj
312.Pandiaraj
313.K.Kalaiselvan
314.Jayalakshmi
315.R.Palanisamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George
Chennai.
2.The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai.
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
4.The Ministry of Defence,
Rep. by its Secretary
South Block
New Delhi
5.The Estate Officer,
Colonel
Station Commander
Station Head quarters,
Guarda Lines,
Tiruchirappalli
6.The District Collector
Trichirappalli ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1 st respondent to get
the lands in T.S.No.233 of K.Abhishekapuram Village of Trichy District
transferred from the 4th respondent to its department and consequently issue
house site patta to the petitioners herein.
For Petitioners :Mr.A.Padmanaban
For Respondents :Mr.K.P.narayanakumar
Special Government Pleader
11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012
A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to get the lands in T.S.No.233 at K.Abhishekapuram Village, Trichy District transferred from the 4th respondent and consequently to issue house site patta to the petitioners.
2.The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant paragraphs in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“5.I deny the contention in Para 4 of the State Government getting the land transferred from the Military. On the contrary the State Government has already allotted a suitable site for re-location and rehabilitation of the said encroachers (ie., to the petitioners) at Nagamangalam near Tiruchirappalli and close to the Trichy-Madurai NH-45, under the Rajiv Awas Yojna, which is a scheme being jointly funded by the Central Government (50%), the State Government(40%) and wherein the slum-dwellers being re- located have to pay only 10% of the cost. The proposed buildings are to be constructed by the Tamil Nadu Slum 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government Clearance Board (TNSCB) at a cost of Rs.6.29 lakhs per tenement. A copy of TNSCB letter number 476/JE (P)/2012 dated 17 May 2012 is filed herewith and may be read as part and parcel of this counter affidavit. A copy of the Scheme and Plan was communicated to the Slum Dwellers Associationj of Kajha Nagar vide Station Headquarters, Tiruchirappalli letter No.STA/665/Q(TNSCB) dated 19 Jun 2012 following a public meeting held in the Station Headquarters complex in which the petitioners were explained about the scheme to re-locate them at Nagamangalam under the Rajiv Awas Yojna by the Station Commander and engineers of the TNSCB. A copy of the said letter is filed herewith and may be read part and parcel of this counter affidavit.
6. I deny the allegation stated in para 4 of the writ petition. Since the unauthorized occupants are multiplying day-by-day, the State Government should take a clear account of the encroachers so that a concrete number of encroachers are to be identified. After taking a proper account of the encroachers who are living under slum conditions, the State Government and District Administration of Tiruchirappalli have allotted an alternate site for their re-settlement at Nagamangalam (under Rajiv Awas Yojna). However despite 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government this allotment of alternate site the petitioners are adamant and are refusing to vacate the Military Land (Survey No.TS-233) and are resorting to filing of writ petitions one after another before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in order to prolong the issue without having to vacate the Military Land. I submit that the Army proposes to utilize the said Defence land at Survey No.TS-233 by developing the site to create transient accommodation and canteen facilities for the welfare of serving and retired service personnel, as the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme Polyclinic has already been constructed opposite this site. Hence we have no intention to leave the land to the petitioners and there is no iota of fact that the State Government is approaching the Ministry of defence to negotiate any transfer of the said encroached Defence land at Kajha Nagar (Survey No.TS-233)
7. I deny the allegation stated in Para 5 of the writ petition. This respondent submits that any any point of time the 5th respondent is not ready or willing to transfer or lend the Military Land at Kajha Nagar (Survey No.TS-233) to the petitioners under any circumstances. The said landed property absolutely belongs to the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Army. It is a place which is of National importance and we 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government will never let the said land under any circumstances.”
3. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in this case and a stand has been taken to the effect that the petitioners are encroaching the land belonging to the 4th respondent and they have absolutely no right to claim for house site patta in the property.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners completely lack any legal right. Admittedly the land belongs to the fourth respondent and therefore, the first respondent cannot force the fourth respondent to transfer the land to the State. The petitioners have almost claimed an impossible relief just to continue with the illegal encroachment in the lands belonging to the fourth respondent. It is also seen that the State Government has already taken steps for the rehabilitation of the encroachers by forming a 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government scheme at Nagamangalam under the Rajiv Awas Yojna for allotment of flats constructed by the Slum Clearance Board. The petitioners are not prepared to even avail this scheme and they want to squat on the property belonging to the fourth respondent.
6. The relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court and this Court does not find any ground to even entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
22.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
16/18https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government To
1.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Fort St. George Chennai.
2.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.
4.The Ministry of Defence, Rep. by its Secretary South Block New Delhi
5.The Estate Officer, Colonel Station Commander Station Head quarters, Guarda Lines, Tiruchirappalli
6.The District Collector Trichirappalli 17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 A.Muthu v. The Secretary to Government N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR W.P.(MD)No.9343 of 2012 22.04.2021 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/