Kulu @ Thiruvakkone vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

R. Sudhakar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second Respondent, the District Collector, the Inspector of Panchayats to pass an order cancelling the "C" Form Licence given to Mr. Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar, the father of the fifth Respondent to operate "Mahalakshmi Touring Theatre" and consequently direct his subordinate revenue authorities to take possession of the land and hand over the same to the administration of Panchayat Board for utilising it to meet the needs of the students community and the common public.

Heard Mr. A. John Vincent, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. M. Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and Mr. R. Manoharan, Learned Counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent. The fifth Respondent has been served on 31.03.2010. However there is no appearance.

In view of the nature of relief sought for and the counter affidavit file, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

The writ petition has been filed by the president of the Maniyanji Panchayat for the above stated relief. It appears that a licence to run a cinema theatre was granted to Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar, father of the fifth Respondent vide agreements dated 25.05.2001 and 13.09.2006. It is stated that Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar died and therefore the "C Form" licence granted in favour of Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar lapsed on 07.01.2009. There is no renewal of the licence in favour of one or other persons. The Panchayat passed an resolution on 13.02.2009 cancelling the rental agreement in respect of the land, on which the cinema theatre was being run by Late Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar. The Panchayat could not resume the land for one or other reason. Therefore, a representation was made to the District Collector for cancellation of "C Form" licence and to take possession of the land. Since no action has been taken by the District Collector, the Writ Petition has been filed.

A Counter Affidavit is filed by the Block Development Officer/4th Respondent, where it is clearly stated that "C Form" licence granted in favour of Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar expired with effect from 07.01.2009. The authority further stated that the Panchayat is entitled to take all steps as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 for possessing the property and to deal with them in accordance with law.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavits which is relevant for the disposal of the present case reads as follows:

It is respectfully submitted that inasmuch as the Petitioner herein, by virtue of G.O. Ms. 225 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and by Section 83 of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act, 1994 is executive authority vested with powers to carry out the resolutions of the Village Panchayat and also to take action to protect the properties vested with the Panchayat and insofar the aforesaid leases entered into for running a touring cinema theatre in the land vested with the Maniyanji Village Panchayat was cancelled by the resolution passed by the village Panchayat, it is the duty of the Petitioner herein to pursue appropriate action to vacate the illegal occupation in accordance with law. The above fact was also informed to the Petitioner herein by this Respondent in Roc.1695/2009 dated 15.09.2009. He ought to have pursued appropriate action to immediately vacate the illegal occupation by the lessee.

With respect to the averment of the Petitioner herein in para 11 to 19 and Grounds A to D of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the "C" Form licence granted under the Tamilnadu Cinematograph Act to one Mr. Meyvazhi Chelliah Ananthar to run "Mahalakshmi Touring Theatre" under "C" Form Licence No. 8805/2008 expired with effect from 07.01.2009 and inasmuch there was no request to renew the licence, the question of cancellation of the same does not arise. Hence, it is open to the Petitioner herein to pursue action to immediately vacate the premise so that the same can be utilized for public purpose as per law and hence this petition is not maintainable in law or on facts.

In view of the above fact the first prayer in the writ petition to cancel the "C Form" licence becomes infructuous in view of the statement made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Further taking note of the stand taken by the fourth Respondent that the Petitioner can pursue the resolution of the Panchayat and take action to protect the properties including recovery, no further order is required to be passed, except giving liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the matter for possession of the property as per law, if not already possessed.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.