Veeraswami, C.J.- The validity of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is impeached in this petition, which prays for a direction forbidding the respondents, the Assistant Engineer (Highways) Kallakurichi, and the District Revenue Officer, South Arcot District at Cuddalore, from evicting the petitioner from a portion of his building in Kallakurichi town. The petitioner has two buildings, both abutting the Salem main road. The petitioner maintains that the building in Survey No 305 with the site on which it stands, has been in the occupation of his family from the time of his grandfather, and for over 60 years, that his father made considerable improvements to the house, and that he made it a storeyed building. In the ground floor, there are 4 shops. By notice dated 22nd August, 1968, the Assistant Engineer (Highways) purporting to act under section. 6 of the Act, called upon the petitioner to remove the tiled top with the brick walls within a week, on the ground that this portion was an. encroachment on the highways road poromboke. The other building which is adjacent to it is said to be a pucca storeyed building, and this too is claimed by the petitioner to be in his possession for over a long period. By another notice, the same Assistant Engineer, about the same time, directed the petitioner to demolish that portion of the building which he considered to be an encroachment on the road poromboke. An appeal to the District Revenue Officer, from the petitioner, having failed in the middle of September, 1968, he was informed in the first week of October to demolish the offending portions of the building and deliver Vacant possession of the site, and that if he failed to do so, the section officer had orders to take possession on the 12th of October. The allegation that the petitioner and his family were in occupation of the building for the past 60 years has not been specifically denied by the respondents. They say that the encroachments were covered by B. Memoranda and penalties sent and levied in those years, and that, therefore, the claim of private ownership cannot be upheld. In the appeal before the District Revenue Officer, the petitioner had urged that the front of the shop was not in any way a hindrance to the public, and that his father was in. possession of this portion at least from 1915, and that in respect of the other portion, he seems to have urged that as it was not in the road proper, and that also as it was in a low level, there was no need in any case, for evicting him from that portion. The District Revenue Officer, in. his order dismissing the appeal, referred to the Assistant Engineer’s report. He stated that both the encroachments were in mile No. 58/8 and 58/9 on the right side of Ulundurpet-Salem road, that this being an important busy highway road connecting the District Headquarters of South Arcot and Salem and other important places, the Vehicular traffic was very heavy, that the first encroachment, viz., the front portion of the shop was situate just opposite to a cinema theatre, and so the widening of the road on that point was quite essential so that it would be used by the pedestrians, and that the second encroachment was by way of brick walls and tiled roof over them. The Assistant Engineer had also added that there was a proposal to widen the road. We find that the District Revenue Officer had also inspected the two portions said to be encroachments, and he was of opinion that the claim of private ownership could not be upheld. He also considered that though the first encroachment was in alignment with the other buildings on either side of the shop, the widening of the road was necessary, and the encroachment should, therefore, be removed, and that as to the second encroachment, the front verandah with Mangalore tile roof, though beyond the road margin, had affected the course of the drainage, and the encroachment was objectionable.

The petitioner’s contention is two-fold:

(1) The Act is violati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document