Madras High CourtWP(MD)/15434/2018disposed of

V.Subbaiah, v. The District Collector

2018-07-20Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy,Honourable Dr Justice Anita Sumanth4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P(MD)No.15434 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.13903 of 2018 V.Subbaiah ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram,

3. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai,

4. The Executive Officer, Thondi Panchayat Board Office, Thondi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's house in Survey No.50/4, Door No.10B-1, North Kadarkarai, Thondi Pudukudi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kameswaran For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader For R - 4 : Mr.R.Saravanan

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.] The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's house in Survey No.50/4, Door No.10B-1, North Kadarkarai, Thondi Pudukudi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

2. It is pertinent to note that though the third respondent had passed the orders under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioner has not challenged the same. The present writ petition has been filed only for issuance of a writ of Mandamus.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession and occupation of the property in Survey No.49 in Door No.10B-1 for more than 80 years and therefore, he should be allowed to continue in possession of the said property.

4. The learned counsel also submitted that the benefits granted to the occupants of the Government lands under G.O(Ms.) No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006, should be given to the petitioner also.

5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one K.Rajendran has filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P(MD)No.23226 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 08.01.2018, disposed of the said writ petition, observing as follows: "9. Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this court, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in this Writ Petition or in his representations, directs the third respondent to act on the communication of the fourth respondent dated 11.12.2017 in Na.Ka.No.105/2017 and with the help of the jurisdictional Surveyor to cause inspection of Survey Nos.

as well as other encroachers."

6. On a reading of the said order, it is clear that this Court had directed the third respondent to act on the communication of the fourth respondent dated 11.12.2017 with the help of the jurisdictional Surveyor to cause inspection of Survey Nos.49, 50, 50/4, 51 at Muni Iyaa Kovil Street, Pudukudi, Thondi,

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing in the property in Survey No.50/4. That being the case, the order passed by this Court in the above said writ petition covers the petitioner also, though he was not made as a party in earlier writ petition.

8. When the petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the present writ petition filed for a writ of Mandamus, cannot be entertained.

9. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since the petitioner has not challenged the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, he is liable to be evicted from the encroached land. Further, he submitted that the benefits granted under G.O(Ms.)No.854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006, are not applicable to the petitioner.

10. After making elaborate submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a representation dated 09.07.2018 to the third respondent and it would be suffice to direct the third respondent to consider and pass orders in accordance with law, for which, the learned Special Government Pleader has no objection.

11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we direct the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.07.2018 and pass orders in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to all the interested parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram,

3. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Thiruvadanai,

4. The Executive Officer, Thondi Panchayat Board Office, Thondi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 74338 PS TE/RP/SAR-1 : 06/08/2018 : 4P/6C W.P(MD)No.15434 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.13903 of 2018 20.07.2018 (2/20)