LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-1034

M. KARUPPASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI AND OTHERS

Decided On March 08, 2018
M. Karuppasamy Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned notice issued by the second respondent dated 18.01.2018. The petitioner claims himself to be the village head of Santhaiyur Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District and according to the petitioner, in his village, people comprising from various castes are living in an area called Indira colony. In the said area, there are 70 Arudanthiayars and 30 Paraiyars and both belongs to schedule caste community. There is a temple called Arulmigu Rajakaliamman Temple which is stated to be in existence for over 100 years and it is the place of worship for the Paraiyars community people. During 2014, a barbed wire fence was erected so as to maintain the temple and the adjourning areas in a hygienic manner. Subsequently, an agreement was arrived at between Arunthathiyar and Paraiyar community people and a compund wall was also constructed around the temple. The petitioner's claim is that they have left 11 ft road for the Arundathiyars and constructed the compound wall.

(3.) It is further submitted that the third respondent has proposed to construct a compound wall around the Kaliyamman temple and if it is permitted it will completely obstruct the public pathway and this was objected by the residents. However, the third respondent started propagating as if the petitioner and their community people have constructed compound wall to discriminate them on caste basis and therefore, filed writ petition in W.P(MD).No.13332 of 2017 to forbear the second respondent to demolish the compound wall around Rajakaliyamman temple. In the said writ petition, the second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act have been initiated. The third respondent filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.15363 of 2017, praying for a direction to remove the compound wall in S.F.No.194. It is stated that the petitioner in this writ petition was not a party in the other writ petition filed by the third respondent and in the said writ petition, the respondent took a stand that already an order under Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act has been passed and the enforcement of such order is being opposed by the Paraiyar community people. It is submitted that the second respondent did not issue any notice under Section 7 of the Act and straight away has passed the impugned order dated 18.01.2018, stating that the notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued under the name of "Paraiyar Uravinmurai Thalaivar".