S. Venkataraman v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration Chennai – 92 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated :22..4..2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW. P. No. 8756 of 2007andM.P. No. 1 of 2007S. Venkataraman... Petitioner-vs-1.The Government of Tamil NaduRep. by its SecretaryMunicipal AdministrationChennai – 92.The Director of MunicipalitiesEzhilagam, Chennai3.The District CollectorKancheepuram4.The Executive OfficerUllagaram PuzhudivakkamGr.III MunicipalityUllagaramChennai5.Aulmighu Draupati Amman TempleUllagaram,Chennai ... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying toissue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from installing aPumping Station to receive Sewer Water in the Temple Tank belonging toArulmighu Draupathi Amman Temple, Ullagaram, Chennai-91 and alsomaintain the Tank.For Petitioners: Mr. R. SubramanianFor Respondents 1-3 : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GPFor Respondent 4: Mr. P. SrinivasFor Respondent 5: Mr. S. S. Raghavan & Mr. R. K. Sethuraman https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counselrepresenting the petitioner, Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3, Mr. P. Srinivas,learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Mr. S.S.Raghavan and Mr.S.K. Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent andhave perused the records.2.The present writ petition has been filed in public interestseeking to forbear the respondents from installing a pumping station fordischarging sewage water located in the temple tank belonging toArulmighu Draupathi Amman Temple, Ullagaram at Chennai and also tomaintain the tank as it is. 3.The petitioner claims that he is a resident of Ullagaram,which was under the control of the Exectuive Officer, Ulagaram,Puzhuthivakkam Grade III Municipality. It is stated by the petitionerthat the Draupathi Amman Temple situated in Ullagaram village has a bigtank adjacent to the same and it was constructed and dedicated by theelders of the village 100 years back and when the third respondentattempted to dump the garbage in the tank, a suit was filed in arepresentative capacity in O.S. No. 126 of 2000 before the DistrictMunsif Court at Alandur. Thereafter, the garbage was cleared after acompound wall was erected and the tank was restored to its originalposition. Therefore, the suit was not pursued. 4.Further, due to the directions issued by the Government byintroducing the rain water harvesting Scheme, plenty of water gotaccumulated in the tank and it was cleaned and maintained. TheGovernment also sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- for carrying out rainwater harvesting in the Draupathi Amman Temple. It is under thesecircumstances, when the fourth respondent decided to instal a sewagepumping station in the temple tank, the residents of the villageprotested. When they did not get any favourable response from therespondents, the present writ petition has been filed in public interest.5.Subsequently, on the directions of this Court dated 09.3.2007,the Executive Officer of the Draupathi Amman Temple was also impleadedas a party fifth respondent to the writ petition and the parties weredirected to maintain status quo. The petitioner also submitted thatthe Municipality in its meeting held on 20.11.2006 considered theagenda relating to sewage pumping station for the drainage project ofthe Municipality to be located elsewhere and also for installing a rainwater harvesting for augmenting water for the temple tank. It alsosanctioned construction of compound wall for the temple tank and allthese will show that it was a temple tank. Even, he enclosed a newspaperreport to show the anxiety of the residents in keeping the temple tankwithout being polluted by the proposed sewage pumping station. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.A counter affidavit dated 03.3.2007 was filed by the fourthrespondent (Executive Officer of the Municipality) stating that theChennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board had identified thefourth respondent Municipality for implementation of undergroundsewerage scheme with the funds provided by the Jawaharlal Nehru NationalUrban Renewal Mission [JNNURM], a scheme sponsored by the CentralGovernment and a sum of Rs. 30.33/- Crores has been allotted for thesaid scheme. For the successful implementation of the scheme, severalsites were considered in consultation with the various Departmentsincluding the CMWSSB, District Collector, Kanchipuram and others andthe present site was selected for the pumping station. The surveynumber in which the present site is located was classified as a "gramanatham" in the village records and a certificate was also issued by theVillage Administrative Officer, Tambaram, that the site was "gramanatham" comprising of 3.490 Acres and in the same area, 53 persons haveconstructed houses encroaching the land. It is also stated that byResolution No. 49 dated 29.01.2007, the Municipal Council has approvedthe site and if the scheme is implemented, it will render maximum usefor the village and flooding due to monsoon rains will be avoided. 7.An additional counter affidavit dated 11.01.2008 was alsofiled by the fourth respondent questioning the bona fide of thepetitioner. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated thatthough three sites were chosen, survey No. 28/1 was chosen for thepresent project, which was classified as "grama natham" and that theDraupathi Amman Temple was situated 150 metres away from the proposedsite. The present site which was chosen, is 7 metres above the MeanSea Level (MSL) whereas the other areas are having 10 metres and hence,this was best suited for keeping the pumping station and the sewage canbe pumped through the pipeline to the treatment plant, Perungudi. Itis also stated that the site surrounding the land was encroached byencroachers and it is in their vested interest, the present writpetition has been filed. It was also stated that survey No. 28/1never vested with the temple and since the temple was granted funds forinstalling rain water harvesting scheme, as a test run, the rain watercollected was routed to the low lying area and that is how, the watergot collected in Survey No. 28/1. Since a compound wall was built asit was a low lying area, the residents have started claiming that thetank belonged to the temple. It is also stated that the encroachersaround the temple cannot stake any claim over Survey No. 28/1 and theobjections raised by the petitioner should be rejected outrightly. 8.Though the fifth respondent was impleaded as a party, theyhave not come forward to make any statement explaining their stand.It only shows that the Temple was not the owner of Survey No. 28/1.9.Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that a village natham cannot be vested with thePanchayat (in the present case, Municipality) and that it is a public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a learned single Judgeof this Court in A.K. Thillaivanam v. The District Collector, ChengaiAnna District [1998 (3) L.W. 603]. He also relied upon a judgment ofthe Division Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Kadathur TownPanchayat v. V. Swaminathan and others [2004 (3) C.T.C. 270].Both the judgments were pressed into service for the purpose of showingthat the lands classified as natham do not vest with the local bodiesand the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act cannot bepressed into service for evicting encroachers found in such lands. 10.We do not know as to how these two decisions are helpful thecase of the petitioner.On the contrary, there is no material placedbefore this Court to show that the Tank belonged to the temple. Despitethe temple being made as party fifth respondent, the Executive Officerof the temple has not come forward to make any claim over the so-calledtank situated in Survey No. 28/1. As rightly contended by the learnedcounsel appearing for the fourth respondent that the Survey No. inquestion is only classified as grama natham and, therefore, in theabsence of any occupancy right by any person, the place will have to beconsidered as free from locating the pumping station. 11.Once it is held that the tank does not belong to the temple,the other objection regarding locating the pumping station in the SurveyNo. in question, will pollute the water in the tank, has also to benecessarily rejected. It has been explained in the additional counteraffidavit that the water collected therein is only a collection of rainwater and it is not a tank which was in existence over 100 years asclaimed or it got formed naturally. Further, the apprehension that thepumping station, if located, will pollute the nearby water sources hasalso no factual basis. Since the scheme of locating a pumping stationhas been conceived in public interest and that the Municipality has alsogiven approval for the same, we feel that the present writ petition isfiled under misapprehension and not for any bona fide purpose. 12.Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation indismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition isdismissed. Interim order passed by this Court will stand vacated andthe Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award cost on thepetitioner though he was partially responsible in delaying the executionof the project. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrargri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The SecretaryMunicipal AdministrationChennai – 92.The Director of MunicipalitiesEzhilagam, Chennai3.The District CollectorKancheepuram4.The Executive OfficerUllagaram PuzhudivakkamGr.III MunicipalityUllagaramChennai.+2 cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.No.22875.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.22942.Vsv (Co)krd / 29.4 W. P. No. 8756 of 2007