SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 236

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
M. Kaliyamoorthy & Others
Versus
R. Krishnamoorthy & Others
W.A.NO.708 OF 2007 AND W.P.NOS.47678 OF 2006 & 17061 OF 2007
Decided on : 24-01-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:N.R. Chandran, SC for R. Sureshkumar, S. Gajendran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Muthukumarasamy, SC for S. Sathiyamoorthy for R-1 & 2, 4, 5, V. Subbarayan for R2, R3, Advocates, D. Srinivasan, AGP.

The duty of the State and its authorities to evict encroachers and the need for due process in cases of disputed land rights or licenses.

Headnote:

encroachment - Public Interest Litigation - Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, Section 270 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 270 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, and its impact on public interest. The court emphasized the duty of the State and its authorities to evict encroachers and the need for due process in cases of disputed land rights or licenses. The court modified the impugned order and issued directions for the determination and removal of encroachments based on the status of the road as a State Highway or municipal road.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, running shops on road margin, challenged an order to remove encroachments made by them without due process. The court heard multiple related cases together.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order did not determine the encroachment status and remitted the matter to the Secretary, Highways Department, Chennai, for appropriate action. The court modified the order and issued specific directions for the determination and removal of encroachments based on the road's status.

Issues: The main issue was the eviction of the appellants without due process and the interpretation of Section 270 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the State and its authorities to evict encroachers and the need for due process in cases of disputed land rights or licenses. The court modified the impugned order and issued directions for the determination and removal of encroachments based on the status of the road as a State Highway or municipal road.

Final Decision: The impugned order was modified, and specific directions were issued for the determination and removal of encroachments based on the road's status. The writ appeal and petitions were disposed of with the given observations.

Judgment :-

(S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.)

Appellants in W.A. No.708/07 and respondents 7 to 15 to a public interest litigation, W.P. No.43979/02, have challenged the order dated 29th Jan., 2007, passed by learned single Judge. The appellants are running shops on road margin bearing survey No.158, Mannargudi Road, Thiruthuraipoondi, since 1967 and paying rent to the Thiruthuraipoondi Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Municipality). The Municipal Council, by Resolution No.139, dated 20th May, 2002, having allowed the appellants/respondents to pay rent of those shops for the period 2000 onwards, the aforesaid public interest litigation was preferred by R.Krishnamurthy, 1st respondent to the writ appeal. Prayer was made to set aside Resolution No.139 dated 20th May, 2002 and to remove the encroachments made by the appellants/respondents on survey No.158, Mannargudi Road, Thiruthuraipoondi.

Learned single Judge, by impugned order dated 29th Jan., 2007, having directed the 16th respondent, Secretary to the Government, Highways Department, Chennai, to take appropriate action, the writ appeal has been preferred against the said order.

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court dated 29th Jan., 2007, the respondent, State of Tamil Nadu issued letter No.6433/HP2/07-1 dated 30th March, 2007, from its Highways Department and directed the Superintending Engineer (H), Trichy; the Collector, Thiruvarur District; the Commissioner, Thiruthuraipoondi Municipality and concerned Divisional Engineer to take steps as per High Courts direction. In view of such letter, a telephonic message No.9522/2007/F3 dated 10th April, 2007, was issued by the District Collector, Thiruvarur, directing the Divisional Engineer (Highways), Thiruvarur, Commissioner of Municipality, Thiruthuraipoondi and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi as also the concerned Tahsildar to work together to remove the encroachments and to submit report. Aforesaid letter dated 30th March, 2007 and telephonic message dated 10th April, 2007 have been challenged by the appellants separately in W.P. No.17061/07.

3. A separate public interest litigation, W.P. No.47678/06 has been filed for removal of encroachment and similar prayer made as was made in the earlier public interest litigation giving rise to the present appeal. In the above background, all the cases were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

4. According to the counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners of W.P. No.17061/07, they are not encroachers and running their respective shops on the road margins since long on the basis of licence granted by municipality and on payment of rent. Their grievance is that, learned single Judge passed the impugned order dated 29th Jan., 2007, without impleading them as party and without hearing them. In fact, it has given rise to the State Governments letter dated 30th March, 2007 and telephonic message dated 10th April, 2007, to evict them without verifying their records. It is submitted that the action will amount to eviction of the appellants/petitioners in violation of rules of natural justice.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent to the appeal, who is the petitioner of the earlier public interest litigation, submitted that survey No.158 is a public road known as "Mannargudi Road". It is a State Highway and maintained by the municipality and, thereby, the municipality has no right to settle any portion of the road or its margin; such action will be also against public interest. Similar plea has been taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No.47678/06.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the municipality tried to justify their action to run shops on road margins and referred to Section 270 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. It was submitted that the municipality has power to allow persons to sell articles in public street by granting licence.

.5. In this connection, we may observe tha












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top