A. Balashanmugam vs The District Collector

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The Executive Officer of Konganapuram Selection Grade Town Panchayat, issued a notice to the traders, who were in occupation of a Government land in a place near the new market complex built by the Town Panchayat, for the removal of the encroachments. Simultaneously, the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union also addressed a communication to the Electricity Board, to disconnect the electricity supply to the shops run by the traders.

Immediately one of the traders came up with the first writ petition in W.P.No. 29223 of 2014, challenging the notice of removal of encroachment and also challenging the communication seeking disconnection of electricity supply. Originally, the said writ petition was placed before the Division Bench, but the Division Bench directed the matter to be posted before me. On 11.11.2014, I ordered notice in the said writ petition and also granted an interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner and not to disconnect the electricity supply.

Subsequently, the petitioner in W.P.No. 29223 of 2014 and yet another trader, have come up with two more writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 29763 and 29764 of 2014, challenging the orders of rejection of their request for the grant of patta and also seeking a consequential mandamus to direct the respondents to assign the lands in their favour. When these two writ petitions came up for hearing before me on 17.11.2014, I directed all the writ petitions to be tagged together and posted. Accordingly, they were posted.

In the meantime, the Town Panchayat filed a typed set of papers containing certain documents and photographs pointing out that the petitioners are in occupation of the land, which is blocking the entrance to the new bus-stand and market complex constructed by the Town Panchayat.

I have heard Mr. V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the first Respondent, Mr. M. Digvijayapandian, learned counsel appearing for the Town Panchayat and the Panchayat Union and Mrs. S. Varalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent.

According to the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 29223 and 29763 of 2014, the District Board of Sankari, as it then was, granted a lease in favour of his father way back on 02.03.1944 and that after the demise of his father, he is in occupation of the shop. Therefore, it is his contention that he is not an encroacher and that he is a lessee regularly paying ground rent. The petitioner claims that the ground rent for the year 2013-14 has also been paid by him as demanded by the Respondent.

In so far as W.P.No. 29764 of 2014 is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that one Mr.Mehaboob Basha was granted a lease by the erstwhile District Board way back in the year 1944. The petitioner acquired the leasehold rights from Mehaboob Basha. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the shop for the past several decades.

It is the case of the petitioners in the writ petitions, that there was a land in Survey No. 268/1, 2 adjoining the land in question. The Government assigned the adjoining land to the occupants way back in 1971 under G.O.Ms.No. 824, Rural Development and Local Administration dated 05.04.1971 and that the question of assignment of the land in question in Survey No. 268/3 was postponed. Therefore, they repeatedly made representations, but the same have not only been turned down, but the respondents are also trying to evict them.

It is seen from the orders impugned in the two writ petitions W.P.Nos. 29763 and 29764 of 2014 that the land in question is classified as Shandy Poramboke. It is in the control of the Town Panchayat. The said land is chosen as the entry point to a new bus-stand constructed for Konganapuram. The bus-stand has already been constructed. According to the respondents, the petitioners have constructed commercial buildings and have even let out this property to third parties at the cost of the Town Panchayat. Therefore, the Tahsildar has rejected the request for grant of patta.

The documents filed by the respondents show that the land in Survey No. 268/3 is a Shandy Poramboke. The FMB sketch shows that the land in Survey No. 268/3 is so located that the access to the bus-stand from the main road is possible only through the same. Therefore, the fact that the respondents require the land for a public purpose is not in doubt. The petitioners are also not the owners of the land.

But the contention of Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not to be treated as encroachers and that they became lessees way back in the year 1944. Therefore, it is his claim that the petitioners cannot be thrown out except after termination of the lease and after following due process of law.

At the outset, I should point out that one of the two writ petitioners herein, may claim to be a lessee since the lease of the year 1944 was in favour of his father. But the same is not the case with the other writ petitioner. The other writ petitioner did not take the land on lease from the District Board in the year 1944. It was taken admittedly by one Mehaboob Basha. Therefore, one of the two petitioners has no right whatsoever against the Town Panchayat as he is only an unauthorised occupant. Assuming that there was a lease, the lease does not subsist any longer. Unless the lease subsists, the petitioners cannot claim to be lessees. Once the period of lease comes to an end and it is not renewed, the petitioners cannot claim any further right.

The Town Panchayat appears to have issued notices way back on 28.02.2011 to the petitioners as well as to others. A pucca bus-stand with a market has also been constructed. Unfortunately, the inauguration of the bus-stand is now stalled because of the encroachments made by the petitioners. Therefore, it is not in public interest to allow the petitioners to continue.

In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, the respondent shall grant to the petitioners time up to 15.12.2014 to remove their movables from the shops in question. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.