H.Chitra v. The Tahsildar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2017 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Writ Petition No.30767 of 2004 and WPMP.37261/2004 H.Chitra ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Tahsildar, Tindivanam.
2. The Village Administrative Officer, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents, particularly, that of the 1st respondent dated 12.9.2004 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice and consequently forbear the respondents herein, their men, agents, servants etc. from in any manner disturbing the petitioner from possessing and enjoying land comprised in S.No.540/10 which are morefully described in the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.9.2004.
For petitioner : No appearance For respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate ****
O R D E R
The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents, particularly, that of the 1st respondent, dated 12.9.2004 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice and consequently, forbearing the respondents herein from in any manner disturbing the petitioner from possessing and enjoying the land comprised in S.No.540/10 which are morefully described in the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 12.9.2004. 2.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is running a Shrimp Farm in Marakkanam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. In view of the fact that sea back water running to the village, there is no fresh water in that locality. Further, people do not reside in the locality for want of potable drinking water. The petitioner purchased 20 acres of land for the purpose of having a Shrimp Farm.
3.
On a perusal of the typed set of papers, it appears that earlier, the persons belonging to the petitioner village, filed a Writ Petition No.23835 of 2003, after considering the plea of the local villagers as well as the Pollution Control Board and the District Collector, Villupuram, for removal of the prawn culture farm owners of prawn culture, encroached the land which was allotted to the poor people. Accordingly, this Court by its order dated 27.08.2003 directed the official respondent to conduct an enquiry by following the process of law and pass orders thereafter. Again, the villagers of the petitioner Village filed another Writ Petition No.22202 of 2004. This Court, by its order dated 04.08.2004, directed the respondents, not to dispossess the petitioner from the land-in-question except following the procedure established by law. Thereafter, after conducting a detailed enquiry as directed by this Court, the Official respondent issued a notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 4.
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
tsi 5.
Admittedly, as against notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, adjudicatory mechanism is available under the Encroachment Act. It is well settled that it can be adjudicated by way of appeal or by way of revision and without doing so, approaching this Court is not permissible.
6.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy under Section 10 and further remedy is available by way of revision under Section 10A of the Act. The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for a period of 2 weeks. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 11.08.2017 tsi To
1. The Tahsildar, Tindivanam.
2. The Village Administrative Officer, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.
W.P.No.30767 of 2004
11.08.2017
4.
The petitioner claims to be in possession of a large extent of lands located in various survey numbers, the details of which are given in the writ petition. The petitioner is having a shrimp farm in those lands. The lands situated in various survey numbers detailed in the writ petition belong to the Government. In carrying on the business activities, the petitioner is in occupation of the lands detailed in the writ petition and they are being assessed to penal charges. Various ''B-Memos'' issued to the petitioner for a long period in respect of their occupation of the lands referred to above are available in the paper book filed before this Court.
Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner's possession of the lands is known to the Government and they recognized such possession as that of a trespasser/encroacher on payment of penal charges. The Supreme Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another (2004 III LW 143) held that if anybody's possession is for a long period and that too well known to the person with actually owns the land, then it amounts to settled possession of the lands with the person who claims to be in possession and in such cases, the possession of such persons cannot be dispossessed except following the procedure established by law.
knowledge of the respondent.