N. Sathish Kumar, J.

The suit is filed for recovery of possession of suit property and for the damages thereon at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation from the date of plaint till the date of recovery of possession.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:

The plaintiff is a temple governed and controlled by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (in short "HR&CE"). The defendant is the Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.

2.1. According to the plaintiff temple, they are the absolute owners of land in Survey No.25/2 measuring 29 cents, situate in Thiruvanmiyur village and the same was encroached upon by the defendant for the expansion of Madras - Mahabalipuram Highway popularly known as East Coast Road, without following due process of law. Therefore, the plaintiff temple issued a legal notice dated 11.12.2004 under Section 80 CPC to the defendant calling upon him either to return the land or to pay compensation. Since no action was taken by the defendant, it is claimed that the plaintiff temple is entitled to damages for use and occupation in respect of the suit property at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of plaint till the date of recovery of possession.

3. The case of the defendant, in nutshell, is as follows:

The suit itself is not maintainable. After proper publication in the Government Gazette, several lands including the suit property were acquired for the purpose of widening the Old Mahabalipuram Road and the cost of the land was paid to the plaintiff temple.

3.1. Further, though the plaintiff temple claims ownership based on 'A' Register, the validity of the same was denied by the defendant and the onus is on the part of the plaintiff temple to prove the ownership of land. It is the contention of the defendant that as per the revenue records, the land situated at Survey No.25/2 in Thiruvanmiyur Village, which is correlated to S.No.9 in Block No.8 of Thiruvanmiyur village, is a Government Poromboke of Public Works Department and used as a road and, therefore, the plaintiff temple was never in possession of the land and cannot claim the damages.

3.2. It is also the case of the defendant that since the subject land is classified as Government Poromboke of Public Works Department, the question of publication of notification as contemplated under the land Acquisition Act does not arise and the plaintiff temple is not entitled for return of land. Hence, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the above pleadings, originally, this Court, on 27.04.2010, has framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the claim of the plaintiff temple to be the owner of the suit property is supported by materials?

(ii) Whether the defendant is entitled to deny the validity of "A" Register?

(iii) Whether the suit property is a Government poromboke land as contemplated by the defendant in the written statement?

(iv) Whether the use of 29 cents of land in S.No.25/2 Thiruvanmiyur Village by the defendant for the purpose of expansion of East Coast Road, without initiating any proceedings under any of the Land Acquisition Laws, is valid and binding?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pay for recovery of possession?

(vi) Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs. 10,000/- per month for use and occupation or to any other amount?

(vii) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. On the side of the plaintiff temple, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. The details of the same are hereunder:

Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff :