Impugned claim of plaintiff based on adverse possession.

This is a typical case where a person (the appellant herein) has been successful in retaining possession of a valuable property belonging to the State and situated in the heart of Mettur Town, for nearly a quarter century, by instituting some proceedings or other, taking different stand at every stage.

2. The plaintiff, who lost in the courts below, is the appellant herein.

3. Briefly, it is his case that for the purpose of constructing Mettur Stanely Dam, lands in T.S. No.4/1 and other lands were acquired way back in 1924. This land was not used for constructing the Dam and the same was lying waste. It is his further case that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death and thereafter he and his sons are in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption from any one and that they have perfected the title to the property by adverse possession. According to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant issued a notice to him under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) and took steps to evict him from the suit property which he cannot do since he cannot be a judge of his own cause. On 18.3.1992, the defendants and their subordinates came to the suit property and attempted to evict the plaintiff by force, which prompted him to file the suit viz., O.S. No.228/92 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur, praying the Court to declare his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction.

4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement, denying the various claims made by the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant pointed out that the plaintiff has been paying only penal charges levied by way of B Memo and in fact, he is an unauthorised occupant of the suit property and that further, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The further case of the 2nd defendant is that way back in 1981, the plaintiff filed a suit, claiming that his possession was being disturbed and that the same was dismissed and that being so, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the principle of res judicata. The Estate Officer, under the Act, has jurisdiction to issue notice and evict him as per the procedure laid down therein. The plaintiff, by initiating various proceedings, has been effectively preventing the progress of construction by the defendant in the suit property and the suit property is very much needed to construct Staff Quarters.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the same is expressly barred by Section 15 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur. The appellate court also concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the plaintiff has filed the appeal before this court.

6. Let me proceed to refer to the various proceedings which the appellant had instituted in his endeavour to squat on the property and in fact he has succeeded till date.

7. The suit property is an extent of 0.67 acres comprised in T.S. No.4/1 (Block No.39), Mettur Township, Mettur Dam, Mettur Taluk, Mettur District. Admittedly, this property was acquired by the State way back in the year 1924 along with other lands, for the purpose of construction of Mettur Dam. It appears that this piece of land was not then utilised for that purpose and it was lying waste. The plaintiff and his father took advantage of this and appears to have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. When steps were taken to evict the plaintiff and others from the suit property as well as other properties, the plaintiff along with others filed a suit in the year 1981, the suit number being O.S.938/81 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettur, praying the Court to pass a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the State from evicting them. In para No.3 of the said p