NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.

The petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus for restraining the respondents, their men and agents from dispossessing the petitioner from the property comprised in S.F.No.180/6, admeasuring 2 acres situated at Thuvakudi Village, Tiruchirappalli District, except by due process of law.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her family owns land of an extent of 2 acres 47 cents lying in S.F.No.180/6, Thuvakudi Village, Tiruchirappalli District. It is her case that the names of her ancestors, i.e, Anthony Muthu and Maria Selvam, have been entered in respect of the property in the Re- Settlement Register. They are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land over a long period of time and that there is an attempt made in the past unsuccessfully to acquire the land in question, for establishing Regional Engineering College at Tiruchirappalli. But however, the said proposal has not materialised.

3. It is averred that on 18.06.2016, the second respondent - the Branch Manager of the Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation, Tiruchirappalli, had tried to dispossess the petitioner and the petitioner has, however, resisted that attempt. On 23.06.2016, once again, the second respondent - the Branch Manager of the Corporation appeared and served a hand-written note proposing to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question on 29.06.2016. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Heard Ms. Maria Roseline, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and Mr. S. Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. At the very outset, it should be pointed out that along with the writ petition, certain material papers have been enclosed. When we went through the paper book, we have noticed that on copies of some of those documents, the seal of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, bearing date of 21.06.2016 was found affixed. Since the writ petitioner has not disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the civil Court has been approached by the writ petitioner, we tried to find out from the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether there was any civil suit pending on the subject.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, hence, taken time and filed an additional affidavit sworn to by the writ petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the said additional affidavit, it was disclosed that the writ petitioner has approached the civil Court, but however, the civil Court has returned the plaint seeking certain clarifications in respect of the description of the suit schedule property. Further, as the lawyers are boycotting the Court and as the petitioner's lawyer was reluctant to appear before the Court and as none of the lawyers are willing to appear before the trial Court, the petitioner approached the present Counsel on record in order to file the writ petition before this Court, as the petitioner was facing immediate threat of dispossession of the property at the hands of the second respondent.

7. It is, there afterwards, averred as under:

"4. ..... It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner did not want to blame her lawyer for not appearing for her and therefore she chose not to plead about her attempt to institute civil suit before the trial court. If this Hon'ble Court holds that the petitioner ought to have disclosed about her attempts to fight the case before the trial Court, the petitioner herein tender her unconditional apology for her mistake."

8. In paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit, it is further averred as under:

"5. It is further respectfully submitted that the petitioner's son and son-in-law contacted the counsel on record on 26.06.2016 to file the writ petition. As the petitioners contacted the lawyer at the last minute, there was not much time for the lawyer to do consultation with the petitioner's family members. The petitioner's counsel had prepared the writ affidavit seeing the copy of the plain