Veeraboomu Naicker v. The President
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 Oct 2002
- Bench
- P D DINAKARAN
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 s. 2(16)
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN Writ Petition No.37477 of 2002 Veeraboomu Naicker .. Petitioner -Vs-
The President Elavanoor Panchayat Aravakurichi Taluk Karur District.
The District Collector Karur District. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.V. Lakshminarayan For Respondent-2 : Mr.D. Krishna Kumar, Spl.G.P. :
O R D E R Contending that a land of an extent of 2.92.5 hectares of temple poramboke and 1.15.5 hectares of Natham in Survey Nos.113/1 and 113/2 respectively, Elavanoor Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District, is under the possession of temples, in which the petitioner is a trustee, from time immemorial, and that the first respondent is proposing to remove a portion of the temple for laying road, the petitioner submitted his objection to the second respondent on 18.9.2002 requesting to take appropriate action in the matter. As no action was taken by the second respondent, the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent from interfering with the possession of the temple, viz. Kondava Naicker Temple, Veerabommakkal Temple, Karuppannasamy Temple, Vettakarasamy Temple, Mathapidariamman Temple and Jakamma Temple in Survey Nos.113/1 and 113/2, Elavanoor Village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.
2.1. The second respondent, who is the Inspector of Panchayat, as per Section 2(16) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, have control of the Panchayat and the functioning. Therefore, the second respondent, being the Inspector of Panchayat, is empowered to exercise the powers conferred under Sections 200 to 202 of the Act, when the same is sought to be exercised either suo motu or on an application.
2.2. Section 200 of the Act empowers the Collector to enter and inspect any immovable property or any work in progress under the control of any panchayat or any executive authority or commissioner. Therefore, the second respondent is empowered to enter and inspect the immovable property in question, wherein a road is sought to be laid by the first respondent.
2.
Section 201 of the Act empowers the Collector, as an Inspector of Panchayat, to direct the village panchayat or panchayat union council to provide any work or amenity and also to call for any record, register or any other document relating to the affairs of the panchayat.
2.
Section 202 of the Act further empowers the Collector to suspend or cancel any resolution that is passed by the panchayat under the provisions of the Act. Of course, such decision shall be taken, after giving an opportunity for explanation to the Panchayat.
Operative part
3. In view of the provisions, it is clear that the Collector, the second respondent herein, is under a statutory obligation to exercise his powers conferred under Sections 200 to 202 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that suffice it to direct the second respondent to call for entire records relating to the matter in dispute, hold an enquiry and dispose of the matter on merits, after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. WPMP No.56 277 of 2002 is closed. Kpl To The District Collector Karur District.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 — s. 2(16).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 03 Oct 2002. The bench was P D DINAKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.