AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The writ petition is filed seeking for a prayer directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the
illegal demolition of the Vinayager Temple situated in Town Survey No. 1400/18 at Aravakurichi Village, Karur District.
The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a Mariamman Temple situated at Aravakurichi Village. As a Sub Temple of the said Mariamman
Temple, a Vinayager Temple is situated in Survey No. 1400/18. The entire land in the survey number, according to the petitioner, is on the Eastern
side of Karur to Dindigul main road and it is also claimed that the temple was more than 150 years old. However, there is no proof for the same
filed in the typed set and it is only a mere assertion. It is also claimed that in the area around the Temple the petitioner had constructed shops and
had leased it out on monthly rental basis. He also claims that he is paying tax and having electricity connection.
It is stated that the impleaded 4th respondent had purchased the said property from one Subburaj and had constructed a shopping complex in
that survey number. The construction was done in such a manner, the access to the said building was not available from the Southern side. Though
it is asserted that the Survey No. 1400/18 is a Natham property and Natham patta was also issued in the name of the Temple and no document
was also filed.
On the contrary, the first respondent/District Collector in his counter affidavit dated 11.09.2008 denied the same. In paragraph 6 it has been
averred as follows:
Para 6. It is humbly submitted that the respondent officials are following the orders of the Hon''ble High Court. Further no Natham Patta was
issued in the name of the temple. As per the Revenue records temple was situated in the Government promboke land and it is submitted that the
shops which had been removed is a hindrance to public road. Further the said shops are also obstructing the path way connecting the public road
with the Bridge across the Nankanchi river. Further the petitioner is not entitled for claiming any compensation from the respondents. The writ
petition filed is vexatious one.
While the matter stood therein it is now claimed that the third respondent on 09.07.2005 came to the site and started demolishing the temple.
On 10.07.2005 the entire temple was demolished alleging that it was an encroachment. Thereafter, when there was protests the second
respondent/R.D.O., Karur, visited the spot and promised to measure the area. But no such measurement took place. It is also stated that a Full
Bench judgment of this Court had directed that even if it is an encroachment the provisions of law especially the Land Encroachment Act should be
strictly followed. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present prayer seeking for compensation from the State for the alleged illegal
demolition of the Temple.
The writ petition was admitted on 02.08.2005. But in the injunction application only notice was ordered. In the mean-while, the respondents 1,
3 and 4 have filed counter affidavits.
The first respondent as stated above had questioned the locus standi of the petitioner in filing the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit it is averred as follows:
Para 4 It is submitted that the 3rd respondent issued notice to remove all encroachments in the Pallapatty to Karur main road nearly twelve shops.
Likewise the shops, alleged in the petition that they were belonged to alleged temple was also served with notice dated 13.05.2005 asking to
remove the shops within 15 days as per the rules and also dom dom was also effected. I humbly submit when the notice tendered to the petitioner,
he refused to receive the same. Hence our officials stick the notice on the encroachment shops and alleged Vinayagar Temple in presence of ward
councilor and witness.
The third respondent in his counter affidavit dated 01.09.2008 supported the stand of the District Collector and paragraph 8 it is averred as
follows:
Para 8 I state that at the out set, I have got great respect to this Hon''ble Court. This respondent submits that the respondent''s officials following
the orders of the Hon''ble High Court and not doing rowdyism. Further no Natham patta was issued in the name of the temple. As per the Revenue
records temple was situated in the Government promboke land and it is submitted that the shops which had been removed is a hindrance to public
road. Further the said shops are also obstructing the path way connecting the public road with the Bridge across the Nankanchi river. Further the
petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondents. The writ petition is vexatious one.
On behalf of the 4th respondent (impleaded) the very claim of the petitioner being a President of the Mariamman Temple Committee was
questioned and it is also stated that the Mariamman Temple had no connection with the Vinayager Temple. In paragraph 3 it is averred as follows:
para 3 I state that I am the owner of the property comprised in Old S. No. 821/F which was subsequently assigned with re-survey No. 1400/17,
1400/19. I have constructed a shopping complex in the said property. My property is situated on the Karur-Dindigul Main Road. On the southern
side of the property, there is a small road commencing from the said Karur-Dindigul Main Road which ends at Pungambadi Road. The said road
was formed and maintained by the Aravakuruchi Town Panchayat and the same was known as Local Fund Road (LF Road) and Survey No. 54
was assigned to it. There were encroachments in the said streets including a Vinayagar Temple and four shops which were obstructing the
pathway.
It is in the light of these disputed claim, the claim of the petitioner will have to be tested. The counsel for the Executive Officer produced two
orders from this Court in W.P. No. 21698 of 2003 dated 05.08.2003 and W.P. No. 3815 of 2004 dated 30.03.2004. Both the writ petitions
were filed by one A.K. Jayaprakasam who was the elected councilor of the second respondent/Panchayat. In the second order in paragraphs 2
and 3 this Court had directed as follows:
Para 2 The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second
respondent in letter dated 15.09.2003 addressed to the petitioner, to quash the same, to direct the respondents to remove the encroachments in
the Aravakurichi Town Panchayat as stated in the petitioner''s letter dated 10.05.2002 addressed to the second respondent and to pass such
further order.
Para 3 The second respondent Officer is present before this Court and through the learned Additional Government Pleader, he has submitted
before this Court that this sort of attitude will not be repeated by him in future and the encroachment pointed out by the petitioner would be cleared
of in accordance with the Rules. As the Officer himself has repented for writing the letter dated 15.09.2003 in an evasive and irresponsible manner,
which is impugned in this writ petition, the said letter written by the second respondent Officer is set aside and the Executive Officer, Aravakurichi
Town Panchayat is directed to remove the encroachment within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report to
this Court on 15.04.2004.
Already there is a direction to remove the encroachment. Therefore, the respondents cannot be found fault with the removal of encroachments
including the petitioner''s Temple built by him in Survey No. 1400/18. In fact, the learned Counsel for the Executive Officer brought to the notice
that a letter dated 19.06.2002 sent by the petitioner to the Executive Officer stating that the prosession of the deities was not able to be taken due
to the various encroachments in Aravakurichi Town Panchayat and he requested them to take action to remove the encroachments.
The notice dated 13.05.2005 given by the Town Panchayat to all the encroachers including the petitioner''s encroachment giving 15 days time
to remove encroachment has also been produced. It is stated that the petitioner refused to receive the said notice for removal of encroachment. It
was signed by two witnesses including the 4th respondent as well as a member of the 15th ward in the Panchayat. Therefore, this is not a case
where the petitioner had never been given any notice by the authorities.
On the contrary, the petitioner was not only given notice before the removal the encroachment but the direction of this Court the Panchayat
was also bound to implement. In fact, in the Executive Officer by name V. Alagesan, was given a memo under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for not properly taking steps to remove the encroachment and not as alleged by the petitioner in his
affidavit. The petitioner''s claim is that he was in possession of patta was not proved. On the contrary, the District Collector has emphatically
denied the grant of patta for the relevant Survey numbers.
In the light of the same, the petitioner has got no enforceable right much more seeking for compensation from the respondents/State for having
demolished the structure found in the survey number which is an un-authorised one as per the records produced before this Court.
In the light of the same, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.