The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing possession and proprietary rights over land, especially in the context of gramanatham land, and clarifies the circumstances under which Section 80 CPC notice is necessary.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2003 passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.39 of 2003 in reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2003 passed by the trial court made in O.S.No.373 of 1998 in dismissing the suit.

2. The appellant herein was the second defendant; the first respondent was the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 were the defendants 1 and 3 before the trial court. The second defendant/appellant remained exparte before the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff had occupied the suit property several years back, ie., in or about 1970 and had been living there, after putting up construction of a house for dwelling purpose. Some times later, the plaintiff applied for electricity connection and paying house tax for the same. The electricity service connection was obtained. For the occupation of the land, the revenue authorities had granted 'B' memo receipts. Later, Thiruporur Town Panchayat gave water supply connection. The plaintiff put up pakka construction after getting the plan approved. The plaintiff is living in the suit property for nearly three decades. Patta had been granted to the plaintiff for the suit property as early as 1995 and a notice under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 3/1905 was also given in 1970s. The patta for the suit property under Natham Survey is 470. Without violation of any rule, the plaintiff is living there in the suit property for more than 30 years doing all acts of ownership and on the strength and support of the defendants and other revenue authorities and therefore, to contend otherwise, amounts to "Promissory Estoppel" and also "Estoppel by conduct" on the part of the defendants. While that being so, now the first defendant had sent a communication dated 01.12.1998 and received by the plaintiff on 04.12.1998 stating that the patta granted already had been cancelled and directed the authorities/defendant No.3 to take further action. They have no right to take away those rights given to the plaintiff with their full knowledge. Based on the promise and other impetus given by the defendants and other revenue and other authorities, a huge sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been invested by the plaintiff for the suit property. One Mahalakshmi, W/o. Mohan had trespassed into the BDO complex and had put up a hotel and running her business there, which is also of the same survey number in the suit property. It is more than four cents. No action was taken and she continues to be there doing her business and this attitude of the defendants is partisan and has bad motives. No ground for eviction is stated in the notice by the first defendant. The cause of action for the suit arose. The plaintiff therefore, filed suit for declaration that the notice cancelling the patta in favour of the plaintiff for the suit property dated 29.09.1998 is void, inoperative and not binding on her and for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the first defendant as stated in the written statement are as follows:-

The suit is not maintainable. The obtaining of electricity service connection will not clothe the plaintiff with any title to the suit property. The issue of 'B' memo receipts would only prove that penalty has been imposed for wrongful possession. In law, the serving of notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act tantamount to eviction as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the suit for injunction does not lie. Therefore, the plaintiff's possession, even if true, is that of a trespasser only. Under such circumstances, the suit for injunction as against the State, who is the real owner of the suit property, is not maintainable. The suit land S.No.110/C8 measuring 0.0342 sq.metre is classified as 'Village Site'. It is abutting the Panchayat Union Office, Thiruporur. The plaintiff's husband Dorairaj was working as Record Clerk in Panchayat Union Office at Thiruporur. During that t