1. Heard Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Harin, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner has come up with a prayer to forbear the respondent, its men, agents, subordinates, servants, from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioner in Plot Nos.1 and 2, situate in R.S.No.171/6, Patta No.373, Villiyanur, Pondicherry, except otherwise in accordance with law.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) The petitioner is the owner of the property situated in R.S.No.171/6, Catasdar No.404, Patta No.373, Villiyanur Commune as Plot Nos.1 and 2. His property is abutting the National Highway. He purchased these plots in his name under the registered sale deed in Doc.No.1080/92 on the file of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Villiyanur. While so, there was an attempt by the respondent to interfere with the peaceful occupation of the property. Some persons claiming to be the servants of the respondent-Commune sought to encroach upon the property. The petitioner immediately objected to such interference. The respondent openly proclaimed that they are going to lay a road on the part of the property and also dig a pit for laying of the drainage pipes.

(b) The lay out was formed after securing permission of the Panchayat. Prior to such permission, the survey department was also requisitioned to identify the plots by laying of a survey stone. They have also done their part of the work. The respondent attempted to remove the survey stone and to suit their convenience, attempted to re-fix nearly four feet within the actual boundary and thereby, the petitioner is to lose 4 feet by 50 feet on the western side of the property and 3-1/2 feet on the southern side of the land.

(c) The owner of the property in S.No.167 encroached upon the road and instead of removing him, the respondent has found a strange formula of adjusting the road to a private property. His possession of the property from 1992 is under threat. The basic courtesy of hearing the parties also found no relevance with the respondent. On 20.8.2011, the respondent came to the premises with JCP and sought to remove the fence. Immediately, the petitioner resisted. As there was little time to seek the reason, there was no mood to hear the petitioner and hence, having no other remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on the following grounds:

(i) The respondent cannot interfere with private holdings expect otherwise in accordance with law.

(ii) The respondent cannot remove or adjust the boundary stones fixed by the Department of Survey and boundaries. Such an act of the respondent amounts to penal offence.

(iii) The respondent cannot seek to convert a private property to a public one without payment of just and fair compensation.

(iv) It is the duty of the respondent to ascertain where the encroachment lies. When the extent enjoyed by the petitioner is in line with the sale deed, it is for the respondent to remove the encroachment on the western side of the road. Without following any sane procedure to seek removal of the fence and attempting to encroach upon the private holding is nothing short of trespass.

4. The respondent filed counter affidavit inter-alia stating as follows:

(i) The petitioner's property is abutted on the north by the National Highway NH 45A and on the west and south, it is abutted by the respondent-commune Panchayat road. When NH 45A was laid, the same was elevated to about 7 feet from the ground level and therefore, plots and other areas abutting the said Highway has relatively become a low lying area. The commune panchayat road is linking SMV Puram (west) and Cauvery Nagar. The area surrounding the commune panchayat road is relatively very low and gets easily flooded even when there is intermittent rains. The drainage has also become an issue on account of the difference of the height. During heavy rain