Lack of right vested in the petitioner to occupy Eri Poramboke land and the requirement to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that he is residing at Kamarajar Street, Alathur, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The land under the occupation of the petitioner is comprised in S.No.230/2. The said land has been classified as `Thangal (Eri Poramboke) in the revenue records. The land which is occupied by the petitioner is at a higher level. Therefore, at no point of time it is flooded by water.

.3. It has also been stated that the Alathur Panchayat has laid roads and has also provided water connection to the house situated in the poramboke land. Sodium Vapour lamps have also been installed along the roads. All the expenditures were incurred by the Panchayat after getting the due sanction from the Block Development Officer, Thirupporur. The Alathur Panchayat had also constructed a room providing a television set enabling the public to view the televised programmes.

4. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been residing in his house for the past more than 20 years. He is paying the House Tax, the Water Tax, Library Cess etc., to the Alathur Panchayat. The penal assessment has also been levied for the land and the petitioner has been paying the same, regularly. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board has provided electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner. The revenue authorities had given a no objection letter to the Electricity Board. A Family Ration card has also been issued to the petitioner and his name is found in the voters list.

5. It has also been stated that in the year 2000, the Government of Tamilnadu had issues orders in G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue [Ni.Mu.1(2)] Department, dated 23. 2000, directing that the persons who had constructed houses on poramboke lands and residing there for more than 10 years may be assigned house site pattas for the said lands. Thereafter, the Government had issued further orders in Government Letter No.11414/Ni.Mu.1(2)/2000-5, dated 5. 2000, to clarify that even persons who had constructed houses and are staying for a period of two years on a poramboke land can be assigned patta, if the said land is comprised in the same survey number in which the persons had constructed the houses and residing for more than ten years. Since the petitioner has been residing in the said house for several years, he had submitted an application to the District Collector, Kancheepuram, on 18. 2002, requesting him to grant patta for the said land. Similarly, applications have been given by all the occupants residing in the said area. However, no action had been taken by the authorities concerned to grant patta to the petitioner and to the other similarly placed persons.

.6. While so, the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, the second respondent herein, had issued a notice, dated 19. 2002, under Section 7 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against, under Section 6 of the said Act. The petitioner had submitted his explanation immediately after the receipt of the said notice. However, the second respondent had issued an order, dated 12. 2002, under Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, directing the petitioner to vacate the land under his occupation, within seven days of the receipt of the said order, stating that if he fails to do so, he would be summarily evicted from the said place. The order was served on the petitioner, on 20.12.2002. Since the impugned order is contrary to law, illegal, unjust and liable to be set aside, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issuing of show cause notice, under Section 7 of th