Sr.Maria Michaela Sasikala v. Divisional Engineer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI and W.M.P(MD).Nos.20346 and 20348 of 2019 Sr.Maria Michaela Sasikala Vice President, The Society of Mother of Sorrows Servants of Mary, Alexis Province, T.V.S.Tolgate, Trichy-620 020.
... Petitioner Vs.
1. Divisional Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, Tiruchirappalli-20.
2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, Tiruchirappalli-20.
3. Assistant Engineer, Highways, Constructions and Maintenance, East Division, Tiruchirappalli-20.
4. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.
.. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in F.vz;.127/2019/m2 dated 29.10.2019 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Father Xavier Arul Raj Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Vinod Sathyalazar For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.) Heard Mr.Father Xavier Arul Raj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 1/3
2.This petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment to the extent mentioned in the notice. The second respondent issued show cause notice dated 09.10.2019, for which, the petitioner institution sent a representation dated 21.10.2019 requesting four weeks time to be granted to them to submit his explanation and bring supporting documents. This representation was sent by registered post on 22.10.2019. On 21.10.2019, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment and the notice be treated as final notice. If the same is not done, the encroachment will be removed by the respondents on 12.11.2019 and cost of which will be recovered from the petitioner. 3.
It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that from time immemorial the petitioner institution is in possession and enjoyment of the land and they have sufficient documents to show that they have purchased the property as early as in the years 1910, 1914 and 1928, two of which are the registered sale deeds and even going through the report of the Tahsildar, dated 09.08.1975, there is a lot of confusion as to which is the property owned by the petitioner and which is classified as 'road' or 'Vari'. The petitioner is ready and willing to submit his explanation to the show cause notice and produce all the documents, but the reason they have approached this Court by filing this writ petition is fearing forcible eviction and demolition. 4.
Considering the fact that the petitioner sought for four weeks time by representation dated 21.10.2019 and the said request having neither been rejected nor accepted, the authority should not have issued the final notice, that too, before the expiry of the four weeks time sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be in possession from time immemorial and they are running a School in the larger extent of the land abutting the area, which is alleged to be an encroachment. Therefore, reasonable time should be granted.
5.In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the final notice dated 29.10.2019 is set aside and the petitioner institution is directed to submit their reply along with documents, if any, to the show cause notice dated 09.10.2019 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of their reply along with the documents if any, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner and thereafter, proceed to take action in accordance with law. 6.In case any assistance is required with regard to the revenue classification of the land concerned, the second respondent shall consult the Tahsildar of the concerned area and request files to be produced. If such request is made by the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Trichirapalli East, is directed to extend his full co2/3
operation to the second respondent.
7.Needless to say, till final order is passed by the second respondent in terms of the above directions, status-quo prevailing as on date in respect of the land in question shall be maintained. Since the Tahsildar, Tiruchirappalli East Taluk is not a party to the writ petition, Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order to him. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.Divisional Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, Tiruchirappalli-20.
2.Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, Tiruchirappalli-20.
3.Assistant Engineer, Highways, Constructions and Maintenance, East Division, Tiruchirappalli-20.
4.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.
5.The Tahsildar, Tiruchirappalli East Taluk, Tiruchirappalli .
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-98390[F] dated 14/11/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.VINOD SATHYA LAZAR, Advocate(SR-98675[F] dated 15/11/19 ) rmk 13.11.2019 SMA/2/12/19/3P/8C 3/3