Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Tmt. Manonmani – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Vellore – Respondent
W.P. No. 19094 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. Nos. 22985, 22986 of 2004
Decided On : 10-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Kamadevan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Akhil Akbar Ali.
Headnote:
Civil Law - Possession - Demolition of the building - Claim of damages -Husband of the first petitioner, who is also the father of the second petitioner, is the owner of the land and he had put up thatched house for his residence in S. No. 20/3 in 1966 and the said land in S. No. 20/3 was classified as Paatttai Poramboke. After the demise of the first petitioners husband, the first petitioner and her children are enjoying the property and that they have been paying the property tax and the penal charges levied by the Revenue authorities in respect of the land under occupation – Held, there is no reason to deviate from the canons of law with regard to the demolition if had taken place with respect to the petitioners property. If the encroachment in this case is not demolished, the respondents are directed to demolish the encroachment in question and take possession of the Government property within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no action is taken by the respondents or their authorities to take the possession of the land under encroachment within the above stipulated time, disciplinary action including dismissal from service is to be taken against the staff who is responsible for taking possession and who is not willing to discharge his duties to safeguard the interest of the Government land in question. Further, in this case, the patta, plan approval, etc., said to have been obtained by the petitioners are in collusion with the Revenue officials. If the officials who have sanctioned and approved the plan are still in Government service, departmental action shall be initiated against them for such act. If the concerned official has retired from Government service, the authorities must try to take steps to identify the person concerned who involved in such act and if the person who retired from service is drawing pension, steps should be taken to stop his/her pension, if the relevant Rule so permits, for their illegal action in issuing the patta/plan approval, etc., to the individuals, when the fact remains that the land under encroachment belongs to the Government, that too for public purpose, namely the hospital. After removal of the encroachment of the petitioners in the property in question by the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as directed supra, the compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court forthwith, who shall place the same before me within one week from the date of receipt of the said compliance report. The District Collector, Vellore and the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, shall extend their support to remove the above said encroachment - Writ Petition is dismissed
1. The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay damages to the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs in respect of the demolition of the building in S. No. 20/3, measuring an extent of 6 cents at Pennathur Village, Vellore Taluk and District and consequently to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the above said land.
2. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The husband of the first petitioner, who is also the father of the second petitioner, is the owner of the land and he had put up thatched house for his residence in S. No. 20/3 in 1966 and the said land in S. No. 20/3 was classified as Paatttai Poramboke. After the demise of the first petitioner's husband, the first petitioner and her children are enjoying the property and that they have been paying the property tax and the penal charges levied by the Revenue authorities in respect of the land under occupation. According to the petitioners, there was a Resolution in 1966 passed by the Pennathur Panchayat Union, which was forwarded to the Revenue Authorities, indicating that the occupation of the land by the petitioners is unobjectionable and they can be allowed to continue in the land by issuing patta. Similarly, electricity supply was recommended through TNEB, the electricity supply was also provided as the Panchayat Union did not object for the same. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in the year 1988, the petitioners applied for planning permission to the Pennathur Town Panchayat to put up pucca construction on the land, which was also approved, after which, the petitioners constructed building. The building was also assessed to property tax, which has since been regularly paid by the petitioners to the Pennathur Town Panchayat. As per the instructions of the said Panchayat in 2003, the rain water harvesting (RWH) was also made by the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that they are eking out their livelihood by running a tea stall in the land, even prior to the construction in the year 1988. Thus the petitioners are in possession of the property for the past several years. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the second respondent, on 29.06.2004, without issuing any notice, has brought some officials with the help of Bull Dozers and started demolishing the building that had been in existence for several years. All household articles were inside the house at the time of demolition and the second respondent pulled down the building and the petitioners were prevented even from removing their articles that are inside the building.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that by no stretch of imagination, the possession of the petitioners can be termed as unauthorised and unlawful, and even assuming that they are in occupation of the Government land, they can only be evicted by following due procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. It is further submitted that as the building had been demolished and the property having been destroyed, the petitioners have come forward with the prayer that the respondents will have to pay the damages of Rs. 5 lakhs for their household articles. It is their further contention that they were in possession of the land totally measuring 6 cents in Survey No. 20/3 at Pennathur Village for more than 38 years. Even the Revenue Authorities collected B-Memo charges. Hence, the petitioners have filed the above Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petitioner, by contending that the land in S. No. 235 (Old S. No. 20/3) measuring an extent of 0.36.0 hectares in Pennathur Village is classified as "road poramboke" in the Village Accounts. The land in S. No. 227/3 measuring an extent of 0.92.0 hectares is classified a
