D.S. Bhatt vs The District Collector, The Tahsildar and The Forest Ranger

T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified

Mandmus calling for the records of the third Respondent relating to the impugned order in C. No. 380/08 dated 01.02.2010, quash the same and

consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the enjoyment of the Petitioner of S. No. 176 of Vengambakkam village, Chengalpattu

taluk, Kanchipuram District.

The Petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 1 acre and 05 cents of land in S. No. 97/7B and S. No. 10/1B, now sub-divided as

10/1B2 and Survey No. 11/6 now sub-divided as 11/6B2 at Nedungundram Village, Tambaram taluk and an extent of 0.52 acres in S. No.

435/1A2 of Unamancheri Village, Chengalpat Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It was also submitted that the above said lands were purchased by

the Petitioner and his father under registered sale deeds from the Official Liquidator, Madras in the year 2007. The said lands purchased by the

Petitioner''s father also came to be settled in favour of the Petitioner. In the light of the above settlement the Petitioner has become the absolute

owner of the property mentioned above. The Petitioner has also established a factory in their own land after obtaining necessary planning

permission from the local authority by providing all infrastructural facilities for manufacturing and export of Power Coated stands for Hammock and

swings as well as by employing 250 employees. It is also submitted that the Petitioner Company is an 100% export oriented unit. The grievance of

the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the access to the Petitioner factory is only through a 3 feet passage. As the said narrow passage is

causing impediment to the persons coming to the Petitioner Company and the vehicles used by the Company are also not able to come to the

factory by transporting raw materials and finished goods, the Petitioner approached the third Respondent for permission to use the disputed land as

pathway for movement of heavy vehicles into and outside the Petitioner''s property. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner also received a notice from the

third Respondent dated 20.02.2009 alleging that the Tamil Nadu Forest Department doubts about the instructions given by the first Respondent in

Ref. No. 74646/06/N dated 21.02.2006 in which the Reserved Forest Area was mentioned as ""Varathu Kalvai"" in S. No. 176.

The Petitioner further submitted a detailed explanation to the notice dated 15.3.2009 seeking permission to use the disputed land as pathway and

requested the authorities to permit him to use the land either on lease or on outright sale. Since the representation dated 15.3.2009 was not

considered, the Petitioner came to this Court by filing W.P. No. 9357/2009 and this Court by disposing of the said Writ Petition by order dated

03.6.2009 directed the first Respondent to consider the Petitioner''s representation dated 15.3.2009. In the light of the order passed by this Court,

the Respondent finally passed an order stating that the disputed pathway is covered by the land which is classified as ""water body"" and therefore,

the Respondent could not consider the case of the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in view of establishment of the factory by the Petitioner in their own land, for not

having sufficient pathway the raw materials as well as the finished goods from the factory could not be taken out. Even the employees employed by

the Petitioner in his factory also are not able to reach the factory premises through their vehicles. Therefore, the Petitioner''s request for directing

the Respondents to permit him either to use the land as a lease hold land or to sell the land to the Petitioner may be considered.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents would submit that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others, , no land covered by water body should be given on lease or sold out to any

person. In the present case the District Collector the First Respondent herein has also passed an order dated 20.11.2010 on the basis of the

revenue records showing that the disputed land is also covered as ""water body"" When the revenue records show that the land in question is

classified as water body as held by the Apex court in the case of T.N. Godavarman, this Court cannot direct the Respondents to give away the

land for lease or on outright basis to the Petitioner. Though the copy of the proceedings of the District Collector has been given to the Petitioner,

the same was not challenged by the Petitioner till date.

In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected pending M.Ps. are also dismissed.