2009 Supreme(Mad) 5569
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
A. Palanisamy
Versus
The Collector, Namakkal District & Others
W.P.No.28212 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided on : 16-12-2009
For the Petitioner:T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Neelakandan, Government Advocate.
Authorities must consider patta request before taking action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 - The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's request for patta and suspended the eviction notice until a decision on the patta request is made.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner occupied land and filed a writ petition to prevent dispossession. He also applied for patta and sent representations to the government. The authorities issued an eviction notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the authorities to first determine the petitioner's request for patta. The eviction notice was suspended until a decision on the patta request is made.
Issues: Dispossession, Patta Request, Eviction Notice
Ratio Decidendi: The authorities must consider the petitioner's request for patta before taking action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to first determine the request for patta. The eviction notice is suspended until a decision on the patta request is made.
The petitioner is occupying the lands measuring 40 cents situated in 232/5 in Alampalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
2. The petitioner was apprehending that the respondents may dispossess him without due process of law. Therefore, he filed a writ petition being W.P.No.21076 of 2006. This Court, by a final order dated 7. 2006, gave the following directions:
"4. Having regard to the above statement, the statutory respondents are hereby directed to follow the due procedure, if they intend to dispossess the petitioner from the above said Poromboke land. The writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner sent a representation to the Government stating that he was occupying the land adjacent to his patta land for the past 40 years and from 1990 onwards, he has planted coconut saplings and also put up a compound wall. He has also been paying " B" memo charges. The petitioner had also applied for patta in respect of the encroached land in the year 2003 itself and even though, the Deputy Tahsildar,Tiruchengode had inspected the property, so far he had not been given patta. The petitioner has already spent Rs. 2 lakhs towards the construction of compound wall and the land being an innocuous dry waste, he has unobjected for the grant of patta. The petitioner has also waited before the Deputy Collector to submit his grievance.
4. In the meantime, two other persons in the same village filed a Public Interest Litigation before this Court in W.P.No.22736 of 2007 asking for removal of encroachment in the same Survey No.232/5. In that case, the petitioner was not made as a respondent. However, a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.08.2007 gave a direction to dispossess the encroachers in the land on the following lines, as found in Paragraph 4 of the order:
"4. On the facts of the case, when it is admitted that the said property which is the subject matter in the writ petition had been encroached by a third party, it is the duty of the respondents to take action to remove the encroacher. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to take action to remove the encroachment in Survey No.232/5, Alampalayam, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District by following the due process of law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order." (Emphasis added)
5. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench, the respondents have issued impugned eviction notice under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioner did not give any reply. On the contrary he has come forward to file once again a writ petition seeking to set aside the encroachment notice and also to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in his occupation.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is having a Thope and having 40 coconut trees standing and he is paying tree tax to the Government and therefore he cannot be removed on a mere whims and fancies of certain individuals. Secondly it is stated that already in another writ petition filed by him in W.P.No.27415 of 2007, this Court by order dated 18. 2007 directed that his representation to be disposed of within eight weeks as found in Paragraph 4 of the said order:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in entirety. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited the prayer in the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 18. 2006 and 17. 2007. In view of the same, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioner dated 18. 2006 and 17. 2007 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after gi