AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—This Writ Appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.(MD) No. 8857 of 2005, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition filed by the Appellant seeking to quash the notice issued on 25.08.2005 with a further prayer forbearing the Respondent, his servants, men or agents, subordinates from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner or from demolishing the building constructed in Plot No. 17 Megaraja Nagar, B Colony, comprised in Survey No. 178/2 in Keezhanatham Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition, granting liberty to the Appellant to move the Civil Court by establishing her title to the property.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is having title with the property and she is willing to file a civil suit to establish the same. However, even assuming that the Appellant is an encroacher, Act 84(2) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, contemplates issuance of notice before evicting a person, who is in possession of the land. Act 84(2) reads as follows:
Power go evict certain persons from board premises:
(2) Before an order under Sub-section (1) is made against any person, the competent authority shall inform the person, by notice in writing and served in the manner provided for service of notice under Sub-section (1) of the grounds for which the proposed order is to be made and give him a reasonable opportunity for tendering an explanation and producing evidence, if any, and to show cause why such order should not be made within a period to be specified in such notice.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Meghmala and Others Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and Others, wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 46, 47 and 48 held as follows:
Even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly. Thus, a person in illegal occupation of the land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law. (Vide Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 PC 144, Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh AIR 1968 SC 620 Ram Rattan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, , Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Roa AIR 1995 SC 2097.
In Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, this Court observed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in based on the principle that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession except against the true owner and purports to protect a person in possession from being dispossessed except in due process of law.
Even the State authorities cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. The authorities cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of the rule of law. The Government can resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law and not otherwise. (Vide Bishan Das and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, , State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and Others, and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and Another,
The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the Appellant has not filed any civil suit till date and she being an encroacher need not be given any notice.
In the light of the said judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the provision contained in Section 84(2) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the Appellant to file a civil suit, if she is claiming title over the property within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
If the Appellant is not filing a civil suit to establish her title over the property, she is directed to give reply to the notice issued by the Respondent dated 25.08.2005, within a period of two weeks and thereafter, the Respondent is directed to consider the said reply and pass necessary order of eviction, within a period of two weeks. If the Appellant approaches the Civil Court, the Civil Court shall decide the issue without reference to the observation made by this Court in any of the proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.