Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

V. VELAVAN V/S THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, DINDIGUL, decided on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.
[ In the Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, W.P.(MD)No. 8765 of 2010 & M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2010. ] 06/10/2010
Judge(s) : K. CHANDRU
Advocate(s) : Mrs. Selvi George. R. Janakiramulu, Spl. G.P.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

    Constitution of India - Article 226 ? Forest Conservation Act 1980 ? petitioner filed Writ of Mandamus to forbearing the respondents for petitioner?s usage of path ? respondent contend that allegation made by petitioner is false ? High court decided petitioner?s prayer cannot be countenanced ? petition dismissed.     (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent their men agents servants subordinates or anybody acting on their behalf from in any way interfering with the petitioners usage of Kanakkanpatty pathai which runs from Karuvelampatty to Sungamaparai in Vennilaimedu Vennilaipallam Vadakounchi Village Dindigul District.)1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondent or any of the subordinate from in any way interfering with the petitioner?s usage of Kanakkanpatty pathai which runs from Karuvelampatty to Sungamaparai in Vennilaimedu Vennilaipallam Vadakounchi Village in Dindigul District. 2. When the matter came up on 12.07.2010 this Court ordered notice to the respondent. Subsequently the matter was adjourned on 25.08.2010 02.09.2010 and 01.10.2010 on the belief that the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to appear and she has to come from Chennai. In the mean while the respondent has filed a counter affidavit repudiating the claim made by the petitioner vide counter affidavit dated 09.08.2010. Today when the matter came up the learned counsel for the petitioner made the following endorsement in the Court bundle.Since the Panchayat has passed a resolution to permit the villagers to use the road and B.D.O.has also recommended for same and our grievance is pending before the authority. The above Writ petition may be dismissed with liberty to approach the respondents.3. However in the counter affidavit the respondent in paragraph 2 has averred as follows: 2. It is submitted that the path leading to Periyaduraian Kovil to Kanakkanpatti is under the control of Oddanchatram Panchayat Union. The path from Periyaduraian Kovil to Sungamparai over a distance of 3 km in Ayakudi reserve land under the control of Forest Department. The path leading from periyaduraian Kovil to Sungamparai is not fit for plying vehicle. During the month of April May and June 2008 under N.R.E.G.Scheme as per the orders of the District Collector Dindigul vide No.227/2007/A3/ dt:26.07.2007 a new earthern road was formed from Karuvelampatti to Sungamparai without obtaining permission from Environment and Forest Department of Government of India 1980 Forest Conservation Act. Through this earthern road vehicle can not ply. Since the permission from Government of India has not been obtained as stated above this earthern path has been closed by the Forest Department. Further there are no villages on either side of the road. The villages of the Vadakavunchi village are not using this earthern road as claimed by the petitioner. Further no one can reach Vadakavunchi village by using this path. The above earthern path is under the control of Forest Department and the allegation made by the petitioner is not permitted to utilise the path as per the oral instruction of the District Forest Officer is totally false. Since the above path is under the control of Forest Department the petitioner cannot claimed right over the path and used it.4. In the light of the stand taken by the respondent the petitioner?s prayer cannot be countenanced. Hence the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected M.P.is closed.