Parameswari and Others vs The District Collector, The Tahsildar and The Village Administrative Officer

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging the notice dated 3.6.2003 of the first respondent issued u/s 7 of

the Land Encroachment Act (for brevity the ''Act''), proposing to evict the petitioners from their respective lands of an extent of 2 to 3 cents

approximately terming them as unauthorized occupants.

2.1. Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contends that the respondents have already issued occupation certificate either

to the petitioners themselves or to their forefathers acknowledging their right to possess and enjoy their respective lands for decades together.

Substantiating the above contention, Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice that the petitioners were

permitted to put up construction and to pay the property tax to the local bodies and they also availed electricity service connection from the

Electricity Board, and therefore, the petitioners have got a vested right over the respective lands by virtue of the act of the respondents, more

particularly in view of issuance of the occupation certificate by the Revenue authorities themselves.

2.2. Yet another contention of Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the respondents have acknowledged that the

impugned sites are house-sites, the same are barred from the purview of the Act as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which reads as follows:

Section: 2 - Right of property in public roads, etc. waters and lands: (1)All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and

fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and tanks

and all backwaters, canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing water, and all lands, wherever situated, save in so far as the same are

the property-

(a) to (f) .....

(e) of any other person holding land under grant from the Government otherwise than by way of licence,

and, as to lands save also in so far as they are temple site or owned as house-site or backyard, are and are hereby declared to be the property of

Government except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force subject always to all rights of way and other public rights

and to the natural and easement right of other land-owners, and to all customary rights legally subsisting.

3.1. Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of the respondents contends that whether the

petitioners have got vested right on the strength of the occupation certificate issued by the Revenue authorities is a matter to be proved by the

petitioners before the authority concerned during the enquiry proposed to be held pursuant to the impugned notice dated 3.6.2003 and the same

shall be considered by the authorities concerned after going through the relevant revenue records, and secondly, whether the impugned sites are

house sites or not is also to be decided in the light of the relevant revenue records.

3.2. Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, also contended that the petitioners are not prejudiced by the impugned notice

dated 3.6.2003 requiring them to appear for the enquiry, and therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the impugned proceedings u/s 7 of the

Act.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is intended to provide measures for checking unauthorized occupation of lands which are the

property of Government. The Act also provides issuance of notice in compliance of the principles of natural justice; holding summary proceedings,

hearing the alleged unauthorized occupants and passing appropriate orders.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the benefit of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act claiming the impugned sites are house-sites or not, as rightly

pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, is a matter to be appreciated and considered by the authorities who are expected to

hold a summary enquiry into the matter in light of the relevant revenue records. At this stage, therefore, it may not be proper for this Court to

entertain the above writ petitions against the notices issued u/s 7 of the Act.

That apart, Section 2(2) of the Act makes it clear that all public roads and streets, vested in any local authority shall, for the purposes of this

Act, be deemed to be the property of Government. If that be so, if the petitioners have put up any construction or house on the public road, that

itself will not confer any right on them to bring it u/s 2(1)(e) of the Act as Section 2(2) of the Act makes it very clear that such houses put up in

public roads and streets, vested in any local authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the property of the Government.

For the reasons aforesaid, suffice it to permit the petitioners to submit their explanation and appear before the authorities concerned on the date

of enquiry and satisfy the authorities that the respective sites are house sites which are excluded u/s 2(1)(e) of the Act, but does not fall u/s 2(2) of

the Act, in which event, the authorities concerned shall appreciate the grievance sasi P.D. Dinakaran,J. of the petitioners and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law. Till then, the respondents shall maintain status-quo. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the orders of the

authorities concerned, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal u/s 10 of the Act in a manner known to law.

With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. Nos. 21346 to 21351 of 2003 are closed.