1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.889 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 G.Periyampillai . .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Water resources) Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 13.01.2011 as accordance with law within a time to be fixed by this Court and to forbear the second respondent and his men and agents from auctioning the petitioner's 120 coconut trees situated at Survey No.274/1, Chengani Kanmai, Thumbai patti post, Melur Taluk Madurai District. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondents :Mr.Ts.Md.Mohideen, Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner is the resident of North Navinpatti, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. In this writ petition, he has sought for a direction to dispose of his representation dated 13.01.2011 in accordance with law and till such time to forbear the second respondent, namely the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (water resource) from auctioning the petitioner's 120 coconut trees situated in S.No.274/1 in Chengani Kanmai, Thumbai patti post, Melur Taluk, Madurai. 2. When the writ petition came up on 24.01.2011, the then Government Advocate took notice. Subsequently, the matter came up on 27.01.2011. Since no instructions were obtained by the learned Government Advocate, an interim injunction was granted. Aggrieved by the order of interim injunction, the respondents filed M.P.(MD). No.2 of 2011 seeking to vacate the interim injunction together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 15.02.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. In the representation made by the petitioner on 13.01.2011, the petitioner stated 40 years before, as per the Executive Engineer, PWD Department, order dated 06.03.1961 and the District Collector proceedings dated 28.12.1963, the petitioner took permission to plant coconut saplings in the banks of Chengani Kanmai, Thumbai patti post, Melur Taluk, Madurai District to an extent to 1.12 acres and also paid water tax for preserving those saplings. He also appointed watchman for bringing up the coconut trees and was paying a tree tax of Rs.20/- per tree towards the Public Works Department. He has also let out the lease of the fruits of the coconut trees to be plucked and document has been registered in the Sub Registrar office and the lease executed. Subsequently, the lease also let out in favour of various traders. However, when the petitioner came to know that the PWD Department has to bring out a public auction, he had sent representation to the Chief Minister and the District Collector through the Executive Engineer and also sought information under R.T.I. Act regarding the auction to be initiated by the respondents. 4. The petitioner claimed that he brought up the coconut trees and if the benefit is not made available to him, he will have a huge sufferings and mental agony and therefore, he sought for permission to pay the tax and also enjoy the benefits of the usufructs of those trees. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner did not have any II-C patta for enjoying the benefit of yields of those trees. The tank has been classified as PWD poromboke in the revenue record and the trees standing in those survey numbers are the trees of the State Government. 6. As per extent orders in the Government, the yield from the Government properties will have to be brought under Public auction. The petitioner has no right to enjoy the yield that too as claimed by him for the 40 years without any revenue to the Government. 7. In paragraph number 7 of the counter affidavit it was also stated that there is no renewal of lease beyond 2007 and it has been granted in favour of 3rd parties, who is not before this Court. In paragraph 7 it was stated as follows:- ".. departmental auction to enjoy the yields of coconut trees has been conducted for the last three years after giving wide publicity and the lease conducted for the last three years after giving wide publicity and the lease amount has been collected and debited in government account properly. Since the 2C patta for the Survey No.274/1 had been issued to 1)Tmt. Meenambal, W/o C.Arunachalam 2) Thiru Elango S/o.Mr.C.Arunachalam, 3)Thiru.Puglendhi S/o Mr.C.Arunachalam, the petitioner has no right to enjoy the yields of the coconut trees for the past 40 years without any valid documents. But now the 2C patta was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 not renewed after 2007. So, the departmental auction to enjoy the yields of coconut trees has been conducted for the year 2008, 2009 and 2011 after giving wide publicity and the lease amount has been collected and debited in Government account properly." 8. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, it will be futile to give any direction to dispose of the representation. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed as unnecessary. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Water resources) Periyar Main Canal Division, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, Sr.No. 39654 jikr ssk/29.11.2011 /4c -3p/- Order made in W.P.(MD)No.889 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 14.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/