Madras High Court
G.Ambrose vs The District Collector on 25 September, 2008
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P.No.2452 of 2005 and M.P.No.2477 of 2005 1.G.Ambrose 2.G.Vincent ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Nagercoil. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Taluk Supply Officer, Nagarcoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 5.The President, Melasankarankudi Village Panchayat, Santhapuram Post, Agastheeswaran Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 6.S.Jebamani (R.6.impleaded as per order dated 6.8.2008 in M.P.1/07) Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein not to effect any change in the records as Paul Danielpuram contrary to the decree granted in O.S.No.358 of 1983 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. !For petitioner ... Mr.D.Rajendran ^For R.1 to R.4 ... Mr.K.Thirumalaiappan, For R.6 ... Mr.J.John Jeyakumar **** :ORDER
The two petitioners residents of Sadayalputhur hamlet, Vembabur post have filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 not to give effect change in the records as "Paul Danielpuram" contrary to the decree in O.S.No.358 of 1983 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil.
2. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on a short ground. It is not the business of this Court to execute the decrees passed by a Civil Court and if the petitioners are party to the civil proceedings, they can very well execute the decree in a manner known to law. This petitioners, even other wise can move the same Civil Court for an appropriate relief, if the subject matter of the dispute is of civil nature.
3. The sixth respondent who got impleaded by an order dated 06.09.2008 brought to the notice of this Court that earlier peition filed by him before this Court being W.P.No.18772 of 2003 for a prayer that the village hitherto called as "Paul Danielpuram" which was sought to be renamed as "Sadayalputhur" without following the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Act relating to naming and renaming the villagers should not be allowed.
4. This Court, by an order dated 08.07.2003, disposed the writ petition on the following lines:-
"3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is objecting to the above renaming of the village and sent representations to the second respondent on 02.06.2003 and 03.07.2003. Therefore, suffice it to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action in the matter and to forbear any such alleged renaming contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Act and also to ensure that the name of the village is not changed, in order to maintain communal and religious harmony in the locality."
5. Before the writ petition, a group of five persons filed a suit in O.S.No.358 of 1983 against 155 persons as well as the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Kanyakumari, before the Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, seeking to challenge the publication in the Gazette on 18.05.1983 about the naming of the place as Paul Danielpuram, instead of Sadayalputhur. The suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 20.01.2003. It was declared that Sadayalputhur is a separate unit and the Government approved schools should be referred to as being in the unit in Sadayalputhur and there was no place called Paul Danielpuram found in the village. A further injunction was granted from naming in the Government documents and other places Paul Danielpuram in substitution of the name Sadayalputhur.
6. Even after notice in the writ petition, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents. On the contrary, it has become a private dispute between the two petitioners and the sixth respondent. Both sides have filed a number of documents claiming that the place should be called as Sadayalputhur or Paul Danielpuram. Both the hamlets comes under the Melasankarankudi Town Panchayat. The list of revenue villages maintained by the District Collector in Kanyakumari District, the name of the revenue village is referred to "Puthur" in Agastheeswaram Taluk and no other name is mentioned. On the other hand, in the voter lists for some years, the village name is mentioned as "Vembanoor" and the documents produced by the sixth respondent shows that the name of the school in that area as Paul Danielpuram. Actually, this is case much ado about nothing.
7. While each group is entitled to call their own hamlets whichever name they want, ultimately there is no record to show that there is any official attempt to change either the name of the revenue village or the town Panchayat or the village Panchayat, in which these two hamlets were situated. There is no necessity to maintain this writ petition. It is for the authorities to decide by naming of a particular village in accordance with law as already directed by this Court referred to above.
8. As and when such contingency takes place, it is open to the petitioners or the sixth the respondent to challenge such moves in a manner known to law. This Court is not inclined to consider the issue raised here, since already there is judgment in a suit and an order passed in a writ petition is on the file. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
ssm To
1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Nagercoil.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Taluk Supply Officer, Nagarcoil, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
5.The President, Melasankarankudi Village Panchayat, Santhapuram Post, Agastheeswaran Taluk, Kanyakumari District.