M DEVARAJ Vs. COLLECTOR OF KANCHEEPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only grievance ventilated by the petitioner, as could be seen from the affidavit in support of the writ petition for a writ of mandamus, is that he is the owner of the property to an extent of 1. 24 acres of dry lands in S. No. 148/1 and 148/2 of Chithamanoor Village, Kancheepuram District, and has been cultivating the crops for the past more than four decades; that the first respondent has initiated proceedings in the year 1974 for acquiring the lands in ninakarai and other villages for the scheme namely Maraimalainagar Satellite New town; that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land till date and also doing cultivation process; that the land acquisition proceeding initiated by the first respondent has not come into for the purpose for which it was acquired; that the second respondent has collected garbage from the villages in and around chithamanoor, Kilakaranai, Senkundram, Melrosapuram, Govindapuram and Mattan odai; that the second respondent is also going to construct a godown for the garbage which was collected from the neighbourhood villages; that all the villagers are depending upon their livelihood from their lands and also the drinking water from Chithamanoor lake; that further the second respondent is dumping the garbage from the month of February 2007 in the property to an extent of 5. 56 acres which is adjacent to his agricultural land; that he raised his objections to the second respondent for dumping the same; but it was not paid heed to; that it was against the operation of the farming activities; that it is causing huge inconvenience to the public also, and hence he came forward with a writ to forbear the respondents from dumping the garbage in the agricultural land bearing survey No. 154 to an extent of 5. 56 acres situated in Chithamanoor village, Kancheepuram District.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in his contentions reiterated the averments found in the affidavit.

(3.) THIS Court heard the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.