AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—These writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioners with the following prayer:
(i) W.P. No. 24292/2005 has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka. No. 585/2005/T dated 22.6.2005 and quash the same.
(ii) W.P. No. 12852/2007 has been filed, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Roc.
No. 8452/2005/A3 dated 24.2.2006, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the resolution No. 6(37) dated
10.6.2004.
Affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
These writ petitions came to be filed before this Court on the following circumstances:
The land measuring 3 acres 16 cents in R.S. No. 13/1, Belur village came to be sub divided as 13/a, 13/b and 13/d, out of which the land
measuring about 1.28.10 hectares was classified for the purpose of bus stand. Necessary resolution came to be passed by the Village Town
Panchayat i.e. Belur Town Panchayat on 10.6.2004. The same was placed before the Tahsildar, who, in turn placed the matter before the District
Collector and an order of sub division and classification was ordered. Accordingly, a bus stand actually came into existence. Under such
circumstances, these two writ petitions, one challenging the order of the Collector ordering sub division and classification and another to quash the
resolution and the order dated 24.2.2006 whereby cutting of six tamarind trees found in Survey No. 13/1b, have been brought forth by the
petitioners.
Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 12852 of 2007, learned Counsel would submit that there was no resolution
passed by the councillors and in the absence of such resolution passed by the council concerned, the construction of bus stand cannot be done.
Further, the order of the Tahsildar, placing the matter before the Collector and the subsequent order passed by the Collector have no legal
sanction and since invoking the relevant powers, the Collector himself cannot classify and pass orders and hence it has got to be quashed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 24292 of 2005 would submit that the land measuring 3 acres and 16 cents in survey
No. 13/1 part, in respect of which alienation was sanctioned by Board of Revenue in favour of Salem Taluk Board with conditions imposed
therein, was used for the purpose of weekly sandai only and there is no other purpose for which alienation was made. According to him, though it
is true that a resolution was passed on 10.6.2004, the same was passed without considering the objections raised by the councilors. He would also
submit that once there was no bus stand for the past nearly about 85 years, there is no need for taking part of the land for the purpose of
constructing a bus stand.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners further added that one of the petitioners is ready and willing to give one acre of land for construction of bus
stand. If that could be accepted, the place where weekly sandai has been conducted need not be disturbed. Further, the total extent of land of
3.16 acres itself was not sufficient for weekly sandai. If the land measuring 1.28.0 hectares was allotted for the purpose of bus stand, the rest of
the property was not definitely be sufficient for the weekly sandai. Further, the main revenue for the Town Panchayat is the fees collected in the
weekly sandai. If the bus stand is allowed, it would reduce the revenue to the Panchayat. Learned Counsel added further that both the resolution
and the order of allotment, allotting the land for the purpose of bus stand, which was passed without any necessity or need, have got to be
quashed.
In answer to the above, learned Counsel for the respondents in short would submit that following the resolution that was passed on 10.6.2004
necessary recommendations were made by the Tahsildar. Pursuant to the same, the land measuring 3 acres 16 cents in R.S. No. 13/1, Belur
village came to be sub divided as 13/a, 13/b and 13/d, out of which the land measuring about 1.28.10 hectares was classified for the purpose of
bus stand. Learned Counsel would further add that insofar as Belur Town Panchayat is concerned, it is having the population of nearly 20,000
people. Previously there was no bus stand at all. Under the circumstances, there is a necessity for construction of bus stand, hence the proposals
have been duly considered by the first respondent and concerned Authorities and accordingly the first respondent passed orders on 22.6.2005.
Subsequently the classification of the land as bus stand was notified in the District Government Gazette dated 6.7.2005 under Sections 242(2) and
154(1) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. Therefore, the land has been classified with effect from 6.7.2005.
As regards the resolution of the Panchayat is concerned, learned Counsel would submit that out of 15 councilors, majority voted in favour of the
resolution. Only subsequently, the petitioners and some others have given a memo of withdrawal in the representation and except these petitioners,
others, who were originally before the council and voted for having the bus stand, have not changed their stand. Hence the writ petitions have got
to be dismissed.
The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by either side. The Court is of the considered opinion that both the writ
petitions have got to be dismissed for more reason than one. It is not in controversy that Belur Town Panchayat has got a population of 20,000. It
is an admitted position that in the long past, there is no bus stand. A bus stand is the utmost basic necessity is an admitted position. All along for the
past so many decades buses are plying from roadside and people are waiting along the two sides of the road. In these circumstances, the need of
the public was to be met. Hence, following a resolution that was passed by the council on 10.6.2004 for having a bus stand, necessary
recommendations have been made. The matter came up before the Collector, who inspected the place and found that it was a fit case for having a
bus stand in survey No. 13/1 which was sub divided into a, b and c, out of which 28 cents was allotted for the bus stand. It is also an admitted
position that already the bus stand is functioning for few years.
Now the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that one of the petitioners is ready to give one acre of land for having
the bus stand. At the same time, it is brought to the notice by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Authorities, after inspection, that the property
so offered was found not suitable and thereafter the classification of sub division was made and also allotment has been made. Further, in a given
case like this, the Court has to look into public interest to determine the genuineness of the resolution passed with majority vote and by the council,
who are representatives of the people. The Court is able to see that resolutions are passed by the majority. It found that the land is a fit land and a
suitable place to locate the bus stand.
In these circumstances, when the public need is to be looked into and determined, which in the opinion of the Court is not in favour of the
petitioners. In the instant case, especially when the issue is location of a bus stand, whereas the petitioners'' stand is for location of a place to run
the weekly sandai. It is not a fact in dispute before this Court that out of 3.16 acres, only an extent of 1.28.10 hectares was classified for the
purpose of bus stand and rest of the land is available for the weekly sandai. Apart from this, the Authorities, including the Collector, had conducted
an inspection pursuant to the resolution, taken a view about the viability of the place for location of a bus stand. In that background, the Court is of
the opinion that there is nothing on record to take contra decision than the one taken by the Collector. Under the circumstances, both the writ
petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs.