Principles of natural justice is required to be followed.

The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the Northern and Eastern side compound walls situate abutting the property and measuring acres 10.00 cents and building of the petitioner company in Survey Nos.172/1 and 172/2 in Melakkottaiyur Village, Chingleput Taluk, Chengai-MGR District and to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000 to the petitioner company.

2. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.Q.Flex Cables Limited, who had purchased land in Melakottaiyur Village for the purpose of locating a factory for manufacturing cables and allied products. When the lands were purchased during June, 1993, the entire extent of the Northern and Eastern side of the property were occupied hut dwellers and those occupations were in respect of Government lands. The petitioner states that as access to the property was blocked by huts, the huts were removed on their paying compensation to the hut dwellers. According to the petitioner, under agreement executed in March, 1994, the hut dwellers, had agreed to remove the huts within few days and the hut dwellers have also vacated after receipt of compensation. The petitioner states that the land situate on the Northern side and Eastern side of the land is vacant subsequent to the hut dwellers vacating the land on 26. 1994. The petitioner further states that after the buts were removed, several the authorised persons attempted to put up huts once again and to avoid third parties trespassing once again. The petitioner put up fencing on the northern side and eastern side of the land which belong to the petitioner company.

3. Admittedly the lands which as the petitioner sought to fence belong to the State Government. The petitioner states that she had applied to me 1st respondent, District Collector for grant of lease of the land abutting petitioners’ land by letter dated 26. 1995 and the same is pending. The petitioner states that she had put up compound wall during July, 1993 which had been demolished by the respondents who came up with large force. The petitioner states that she had raised protest, but the compound wall running to 2,000 feet had been demolished on 15.74995. The petitioner contends that the respondents had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

4. The petitioner further contends that the respondents ought to have adopted the procedure laid down under the Land Encroachment Act and should have heard the objections of the petitioner. It is also contended that the respondents have accomplished the eastern side compound wall of the petitioner without lawful authority causing damages and loss. The only contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure under Land Encroachment Act has not been followed and no opportunity had been given to the petitioner, hence the present writ petition.

5. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent, the District Collector had filed a detailed counter stating that the land comprised in Survey No.l66/lA 1 of Melakottaiyur Village is a Government Poromboke land. It is stated that when the petitioner Company attempted to trespass and started construction of compound wall by grabbing 2.5 acres of Government land, the attempt was taken notice on 6. 1995 and the petitioner company was instructed not to grab or not to proceed with the construction of compound wall, though the Revenue Officials had day today warned the Writ Petitioner not to grab the Government land and not to put up a compound, petitioner persisted. On 30.7.1995 the Tahsildar, Chingleput, inspected the site and directed the petitioner company desist from enclosing the Government land. As the petitioner company failed to comply with the direction, the respondent had taken action to protect the Government land.

6. It is also contended that is well open to the respondent to resist and grabbing and it is also open to the respondents to use such force a