S.Govindaraju v. The Govt. Of Tamilnadu, Rep.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.07.2015

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P. No. 21100 of 2015 S. Govindaraju ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Government of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Collectorate Compound, Salem.

3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Shevapet, Salem 636 002.

4. The Executive Officer, Elampillai Town Panchayat, Elampillai, Salem District.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to 4th respondent's impugned order issued in Na.Ka.No.387/2007, dated 30.6.2015 and quash the same by directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of house constructedin S.No. 118/1 to an extent of 2,150 sq.ft. of D.No. 174 and 175 Pattappan Koil Street, Ellampillai, Salem District.

For petitioner : Mr. S.R. Balasubramaniam For respondents : Mr. P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Spl. Govt. Pleader R1 to R3 Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi - R4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) Questioning the earlier notice in Na.Ka.No. 387 of 2007, dated 10.02.2015, the petitioner has filed the writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 4369 to 4371 of 2015. This Court, after examining the contentions made by the parties, held as under:- " At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that in the year 2005, under similar circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3, without issuing any notice and not providing an opportunity, suddenly, planned to demolish houses without ascertaining whether such houses were constructed in the Eri Poramboke or otherwise and at that point of time, similarly placed persons like that of the petitioners filed W.P.No. 31894 and 31895 of 2005 before this Court and obtained an order of interim injunction on 01.10.

2005. In fact, the petitions were admitted and notices were ordered to be issued. Also, in W.P.Nos. 31558 of 2005 to 31665 of 2005 as well as in W.P.Nos. 31777 and 31778 of 2005, this Court passed final orders on 18.01.2013 and 30.09.2005 respectively by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to follow the procedure envisaged in the relevant rules and to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners therein by issuing show cause notice, calling for petitioners therein by issuing show cause notice, calling for explanation and to proceed further and pass orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the orders." Thereafter, the petitioner has filed his representation and consequential decision was taken by the impugned notice dated 30.6.2015.

2. In view of the forgoing, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded is noted to be rejected. The petitioner has sufficient opportunity of hearing. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot go into the

disputed facts as the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity and he also availed the opportunity by placing his case before the authority. Thus, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar ra To

1. The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Collectorate Compound, Salem.

3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Shevapet, Salem 636 002.

4. The Executive Officer, Elampillai Town Panchayat, Elampillai, Salem District.

1 cc to Mr. S.R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate Sr.No.35481 W.P. No.21100 of 2015 mp(co) pmk.14.7.2015