R. Srinivasan vs The District Collector, The Tahsildar, The Managing Director and The Chief Engineer Highways Department

T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus for bearing the Respondents, their men, agent, Subordinates or anybody from in any manner, interfering with the Petitioner''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner''s property with land and building situated at Door No. 19, Market Lane, Kaladipet, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai19 without due process of law.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the Petitioner with his family is living in the abovementioned address for quite a long time, without any intimation or notice to the Petitioner, the Respondent started to harass the Petitioner by attempting to evict forcibly from his residential house. Therefore, challenging the action of the Respondent as unwarranted, the Petitioner has sent a representation dated 9.12.2010 to the Respondent not to evict him and even if the eviction is required, they can proceed so only after giving proper prior notice to him. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also submits that in the Petitioner''s representation he has also mentioned that he and his family is living for about 39 years in the said property and therefore, when he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property, his right to stay in his house is to be protected and on that basis, the Petitioner filed the writ petition for the above mentioned prayer.

In reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner is occupying the Government poromboke land, that too, on the verge of the road. When the Petitioner''s encroachment is causing public nuisance, the Respondents have taken action and therefore, the same cannot be questioned.

The Petitioner is not having any right to encroach the roadside poramboke and the Petitioner has also not shown any document to show that the Petitioner and his family is living in a place belonging to him. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the Petitioner to issue direction to the Respondents forbearing them from disturbing the Petitioner from his possession and enjoyment cannot be considered.

Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1/2010 is also dismissed.