Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Ponnusamy, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer (respondents 1 and 2) to take action on his representation dated 17.04.2021. The representation sought retrieval of a pond, stream, and pathway abutting the stream from encroachment by respondents 4 and 5 (S. Balasubramanian and S. Palanisamy) over an extent of about four acres on the south-eastern side of the pond in Ponneri Village, Senthamangalam Taluk, Namakkal District. The petitioner also sought cancellation of pattas allegedly illegally issued by the Tahsildar (respondent 3) in favor of respondents 4 and 5 in respect of certain survey numbers. The court noted that a counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar indicated that encroachments on the water body had been removed, and respondents 4 and 5 had removed temporary structures and given an undertaking not to erect any structure in S.No.46/2. Consequently, the court held that no further adjudication was required regarding the encroachment. However, the petitioner's counsel raised an issue about a private tank and alleged that patta was granted in violation of Revenue Standing Orders. The court observed that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate petition before the competent authority seeking cancellation of patta, and if such a petition is filed, it must be decided on merits after affording an opportunity to all parties concerned. With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Encroachment on Water Body - Removal of Encroachment - The petitioner sought removal of encroachment on a pond, stream, and pathway. The counter affidavit showed that encroachments were removed and respondents 4 and 5 gave an undertaking not to erect any structure. Hence, no further adjudication was required. (Paras 2-3) B) Revenue Law - Cancellation of Patta - Revenue Standing Orders - The petitioner alleged that patta was granted in violation of Revenue Standing Orders. The court held that the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition before the competent authority for cancellation of patta, which shall be decided on merits after affording opportunity to all parties. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should direct the respondents to take action on the petitioner's representation regarding encroachment on a pond, stream, and pathway, and cancellation of pattas.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the encroachment on the public pathway and water body has been removed, and no further adjudication is required. The petitioner is at liberty to file a petition before the competent authority for cancellation of patta, which shall be decided on merits after affording opportunity to all parties. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Encroachment on public water body
- Cancellation of patta
- Revenue Standing Orders
