P. Aathi, P-3, Block-I, 20th St., Anna Nagar, Madras-40 vs Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner occupied an extent of 30 feet x 80 feet in T.S. No. 1, Block No. 3, Mullam Village, P-3 - Block-I, 20th

Street, Anna Nagar, Madras - 40 in the year 1981. The petitioner has stated that it is a vaikal poramboke and he had put up a thatched hut. While

so, on 25.7.94, the Executive Engineer of the first respondent visited the place and threatened the petitioner to vacate the place, failing which,

coercive steps will be taken.

On such threat the petitioner filed the suit on 23.3.94 O.S.2278/94 on the file of XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, seeking for a

decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the petitioner''s possession. The defendants in the said suit

are :

1) Assistant Executive Engineer, Part - 13, Circle - 5, Corporation of Madras, Anna Nagar, Madras - 40.

2) The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras.

3) The Tahsildar, Perambur Anna Nagar, Taluk, Perambur, Madras -11.

Ultimately the suit was dismissed for default on 8.7.97. Having filed the suit in March, 1994, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court

29.8.94. Having obtained an interim order before this Court, the petitioner allowed the suit to be dismissed for default. This clearly shows that the

petitioner having failed to get an interim order before the Civil Court in March, 1994, has filed the writ petition. However, to claim bonafides, the

petitioner has not impleaded the defendants in the suit before this Court and cleverly impleaded the Housing Board alone as the respondent herein.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land being a vaikal poramboke, the petitioner''s occupation did not cause any

inconvenience to the public. As and when the respondent wants the property for any public purpose, the petitioner will vacate the same. The

petitioner having been in occupation since 1981, he. may be permitted to continue so long as his occupation did not cause any hindrance to the

public or the place is not required for any public purpose by the respondent.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the lands have been acquired by the Housing Board and the fiats have

been constructed. The disputed property forms part of the road and it is the road margin. The occupation of the petitioner has been found

objectionable by the authorities and that is the main reason, the eviction was sought for As and when the petitioner was asked to vacate, he has

filed the suit as well as the writ petition.

I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. The Housing Board is being administered by a separate enactment called the Tamil

Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961. The properties which belonging to the Housing Board are governed by the said Act Section 84 of the said

Act deals with the issue of notice to the occupants of the property which belonging to the Housing Board. Are governed by the said Act Section

84 of the said Act deals with the issue of notice of the occupants of the property belonging to the Housing Board. Section 84(2) deals with those

who are the allottees or the licensees under the Housing Board. There is no provision under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act to issue

notice to the unauthorised occupants of the property belonging to the Housing Board and as such there is no need for the issue of notice to the

encroachers in respect of the Housing Board property.

The petitioner having admitted that he is an encroacher on the public property, the authorities having requested the petitioner to vacate the same

on the ground that the place is required for public purpose, the petitioner is bound to vacate the same and hand over possession. Being an

encroacher, the petitioner has no right to continue to be in possession. Hence, I do not see any merits in the Writ petition. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.