Muthumalai @ Pappa vs The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru, J.—It is the case of the petitioner that she has send a representation to the first respondent, the District

Collector, dated 07.10.2010. A copy of which is found enclosed in page numbers 7 to 9 of the typeset and the acknowledgement receipt from the

first respondent is also produced in page number 10. The complaint made by the petitioner was that they were earlier worked in a tea estate and

subsequently after the retirement, they were living in Azhakiyapandiapuram Village. They have two children with her. With the hard earned money,

they have purchased 3.76 acres of punja land in the village and doing agricultural work.

Six months before the date of complaint, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have approached her husband, who is a alcoholic and using his weakness

they have got 1.60 acres sold by him and it was registered in the Sub Registrar office without any once knowledge. Even while registering the sale

deed, the have included 21 cents extra and paid only Rs. 3,00,000/-and when the petitioner made enquires, they tried to inform the petitioner that

they will pay the balance amount.

Subsequently she came to know that two months before the complaint, the land was given to the second respondent who had set up a wind mill

in the said land and preventing the agricultural operation of the petitioner. They have also prevented the water supply to her land by fixing certain

wire in the land. They requested the second respondent for removing the obstruction to water supply. Though legal notice was also given, since

continuously interfering in their agricultural work, she made a complaint to the District Collector to enquire into the complaint and restore her land

also the amount promised by them and also to provide a continuous water supply by removing the obstruction put up by the second respondent.

When the matter came up on 07.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered. All the respondents except the fifth respondent were served. The tapal

sent to the fifth respondent has come back undelivered with an endorsement ''refused''. Therefore, it is deemed service on R5.

The counsel appearing for the third respondent strenuously refused the allegations made by the petitioner.

Though the learned Additional Government Pleader attempted to contend that it may be a civil dispute to consider the scope of the legal notice

exchanged, this Court is unable to accept the same, since the State Government has constituted a special cell with reference to land grabbing by

powerful persons and also subsequently special courts have also constituted. The District Collector is bound to enquire into the complaint made by

the petitioner. Hence the direction is issued to the first respondent to make enquriy on the complaint dated 07.10.2010 sent by the petitioner after

due notice to the other parties, if necessary. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed. No costs.