Provisions of the Act have to be followed strictly.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These three Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 26. 1998 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.1959, 2740 and 2796 of 1990. The writ petitioners have filed these writ appeals, as the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the aforesaid common order of the learned single Judge. The facts and questions of law that arise for consideration are common to each of the appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are the following:- The appellants contend that their fathers occupied the respective pieces of land, abutting Chengam Road, about thirty years before the filing of the writ petitions and they constructed houses on the respective lands; the second respondent— Municipality assigned Door Numbers to the respective houses; the house-tax is being paid to the second respondent—Municipality for the last 30 years, for which receipts were issued by the second-respondent—Municipality; thus the second respondent recognised the ownership of the appellants to the said houses; the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has given electricity connection to the said houses. It is the further case of the appellants that due to the political motives, pressure was brought on the first respondent to demolish the houses, without any justification. The appellants contend that they are in continuous occupation of the sites and the houses built thereon; their names are found in the voters list, ration card etc., even assuming that the appellants are encroachers, even then the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, the Act), have to be strictly followed before taking action, in that the respondents ought to have issued notice under Section 7 of the Act, giving opportunity to the appellants and thereafter should have proceeded to pass orders under section 6 of the Act; no order was made under Section 6 of the Act; nor any notice was issued to them under Section 7 of the Act; as such the respondents had no jurisdiction to demolish the houses of the appellants arbitrarily. According to the appellants, the provisions of the said Act not only guaranteed notice, but also time limit within which they have to vacate the premises; the Act also guarantees an enquiry by the Collector, if resistance is made questioning the eviction; Section 6(2) of the Act makes it clear that the power is vested with the Collector to regularise the encroachment. It is also stated that there is a Government Order which directs that if the constructions made are not objectionable, the lands can be assigned to the persons in occupation, by collecting double the market value. It is further submitted that there are 100 houses in a row abutting the appellants houses and all the houses are in the encroached land, but the same were not demolished, nor any attempt was made to demolish them; but only the appellants houses alone are chosen for demolition; they have made representations for assignment of patta, but no action has been taken. Under the circumstances, the writ petitions were filed for issue of mandamus by directing the respondents not to demolish the houses of the appellants or evict them from the said house.

4. The counter affidavits were filed contending that the levy of tax by the second respondent and the electricity connection given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot confer the ownership to the appellants on the houses; the appellants have not obtained No-Objection Certificates from respondent No.1 for getting electricity connection. It is also contended that payment of house-tax and electricity charges, finding their names in the Voters List, ration cards etc., do not give rights over the Highways land to the appellants to claim ownership; the land is required for widening of road; eviction was conducted throughout the town of Thiruvannamalai from 2. 1990