AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The three writ Petitioners have filed the three writ petitions seeking to challenge an order dated 29.10.2010 issued u/s 5 of
the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a further direction to the Respondents not to take any
action under the said Act.
In the first two writ petitions, notice was ordered to the Respondents on 12.11.2010 and pending the same, an interim stay was granted. In the
third writ petition, notice was ordered on 19.11.2010. The said writ petition was directed to be posted along with the two other writ petitions.
Pending notice, an interim stay was granted.
When these matters were pending, one R. Velu, son of T. Radhakrishnan has filed three petitions in M.P. No. 2 of 2010 to get himself
impleaded in those writ petitions. In that petitions, notice was ordered on 5.1.2011. In those applications, the original writ Petitioners have filed
counter affidavits, dated 14.01.2011 and 28.2.2011. It was contended that he is neither necessary nor proper party. However, this Court under
the facts and circumstances of the case was inclined to allow these three petitions. They were ordered as prayed for. On behalf of the impleaded
Respondent, though vacate stay applications were filed, it is unnecessary to number the same as the main writ petitions themselves were taken up
for hearing.
The case as projected by the Petitioners before this Court was that they are the permanent residents of Gummidipoondi. They have put up
houses in Survey No. 559/A, Gummidipoondi Village. The lands were classified as Chatram land in revenue records. A larger extent of property in
Survey No. 559A belonged to a Choultry named as Swamichetty Choultry. The lands were donated to the Choultry prior to 1945. Since there
was mismanagement, a suit came to be filed in O.S. No. 11 of 1946 on the file of the sub Court, Chengalpet for framing a scheme. The scheme
suit was decreed. Inspite of the same, the Choultry was not managed properly. An another suit came to be filed in O.S. No. 33 of 1951 before the
same Sub Court, Chengalpet for appointing a proper person for administration of the Choultry. In the year 1939, one Ranganatha Chetty and his
wife had executed a registered document, dated 22.11.1939 adopting one Chandrasekar Chettiar as their son. They had also mentioned about the
properties owned by them including the land in S. No. 559/A measuring 3 acres and 11 cents. Subsequently, in 1945, a settlement deed was
executed by the said Ranganatha Chetty as well as by his adopted son Chandrasekar Chettiar on 1.11.1945 settling the properties in favour of Sri
Varasakthi Vinayakar Temple. The trustees of the temple had permitted various individuals to occupy the land and put up houses. The Petitioners''
predecessors were put in possession of the land belonging to the Trust. After the death of the Petitioners'' predecessors, the Petitioners are
enjoying the properties. They has also put up construction for residential purposes and are paying necessary taxes to the Town Panchayat.
The land in Survey No. 559/A was classified as Chatram land and the Government had also put up construction to an extent of 600 square feet.
The land never belonged to the Government. At least from the year 1939, as per various registered documents, it belonged to various individuals.
While the matter stood thus, on 29.10.2010, notices u/s 5 were issued to the Petitioners to appear for an enquiry on 12.11.2010. It was claimed
that the land belonged to the Government. Since the land did not belong to the Government, the invocation of the Land Encroachment Act was
improper. Though notices were issued u/s 5, in the said notices, a reference was made to Sections 3,5 and 6 of the said Act. Without issuing notice
u/s 7, it was not proper for the Respondents to proceed u/s 6.
On behalf of the impleading Respondent, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner in W.P. No. 25645 of 2010 had filed a
writ petition before this Court in public interest in W.P. No. 3195 of 2007. In that writ petition, he had asked for a direction to the official
Respondents to remove the encroachments made by Respondents 5 to 7 in that writ petition in Survey No. 559/A, V.M. 2nd Street,
Gummidipoondi. Interestingly, the sixth Respondent in that writ petition is the present writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 26048 of 2010. The Petitioner in
W.P. No. 25646 of 2010 K. Nagarajan claimed that he is living in 1st Street, No. 1, V.M. Street, Gummidipoondi. In that writ petition, a division
bench of this Court found that 0.06 cents in Chatram Poramboke was in possession of Government Library and the remaining portions were
encroached by many people. A stop work notice was also issued to one R. Sundar Raj. Even the Petitioners were given notices. The Court was
informed that the Petitioner Murugan had refused to receive the notice. But, however the Court had given liberty to the State Government to
remove all encroachers after giving noticed to all encroachers.
It was stated that the said Murugan filed a suit before District Munsif Court, Ponneri in O.S. No. 17 of 2003 seeking for permanent injunction.
In the schedule, the property was described as 250 square feet in Survey No. 559/A. But the suit was dismissed as they failed to prove their case.
The learned Munsif also found that there was no proof for the Petitioner in claiming that the suit was the trust property. He had also not produced
the sale deed. He had also admitted that as per the High Court''s order and as per the order of the District Collector, 0.06 cents in Chatram
Poramboke were apportioned for Library. Therefore, the suit property belonged to the public library. The impleaded Respondent also moved the
division bench in W.P. No. 22556 of 2010 seeking for a direction to remove the encroachment in S. No. 559/A. A division bench by an order
dated 05.10.2010 gave liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his case before the District Collector.
It is needless to state that the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25645 and 26048 of 2010 were parties to the earlier writ petition before the division
bench. Curiously, one person in public interest had sought to remove the encroachers from the land which included the third writ Petitioner. The
Petitioner himself was exposed before the division bench that he himself was an encroacher and was refusing to receive notice. The very same
Petitioner also unsuccessfully moved the Civil Court and failed to establish his right to the property. The Petitioners in their affidavits have not
referred to any of these proceedings. They are guilty of vital information being suppressed before this Court. These writ petitions are liable to be
rejected on that short ground.
Further, when the division bench had already held that encroachers in the land should be removed, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition
for cross purpose, thereby nullifying the order of the division bench. This Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It is for the
Petitioners to reply to those notices. There is no impediment for the Respondents to pass an appropriate order on the proceedings initiated by
them. The technical pleas raised by the Petitioners pale into insignificance in the context of their suppressing the vital facts before this Court and that
they are bound by the orders of the division bench as well as the civil court. The case of the Petitioner in W.P. No. 25646 of 2010 does not stand
any different. Even though he might not have been party, he is also squatting in the same survey number.
In the light of the above, all the three writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions stand closed.