Availability of an effective alternate remedy under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and the entitlement of the petitioners to file an appeal and a petition for stay.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners claim that they are the permanent residents of Kurumpatti village, Dasarahalli Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District and according to the 1st petitioner had purchased the property comprised in S.No.28/1 and 32/1 situate at Kurumpatti Village, Dasarahalli Tharappu, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District through registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1490/1975, dated 04.0.1975 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District and claims to have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue records were also mutated in her favour. The petitioner would further aver that one Kariyan @ Pairan had purchased the property comprised in S.No.28/1 through a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.277/977 dated 09.06.1977 and both properties were enjoyed by her predecessors and at present, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and mutations have also been done in the revenue records. It is further averred by the 1st petitioner that the 4th respondent, vide proceedings dated 23.02.2013 in Na.Ka.No.5529/2012/A3, has cancelled the assignment on the ground that the conditions of Assignment in favour of Adi Dravidar Beneficiary, has been violated in respect of Kurumpatti village S.Nos.28/1A2, 28/2 and 28/2E admeasuring to an extent of 1.14.4, 0055 and 0065 and challenging the same, an appeal has been filed before the 3rd respondent and it is pending without any interim orders. The grievance now expressed by the petitioners is that the 5th respondent without due proper application of mind to the materials, has issued notices u/s.7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent before issuing notice, has failed to advert to the materials placed for the reason the title of the petitioners to the property has been traced as early as from the year 1975 and without proper verification of the relevant records, has erroneously issued the impugned notices and hence, prays for interference.

4. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that counter affidavit is being prepared and prays for short accommodation.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

6. A perusal of the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 23.02.2013 would disclose that assignment in respect of certain extent of lands in Kurumpatti village, in S.Nos.28/1A2, 28/2 and 28/2E has been cancelled and the jurisdictional Tahsildar was also directed to carry out necessary corrections in the Village Accounts etc., as well as in the computer. Curiously, the patta No.48, granted in favour of the 2nd petitioner, annexed in page No.50 of the typed set of documents would indicate that it is as per the records available up to 01.05.2004 and the print out was taken on 02.05.2004. It is surprising to note that despite cancellation of assignment vide proceedings of the 4th respondent on 23.02.2013 with a further direction to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to carry out necessary corrections, the old entries, even now, are in existence. It is also to be noted at this juncture that challenging the above said order, an appeal is also said to be pending on the file of the 3rd respondent.

7. Be that as it may, the petitioners are having an effective alternate remedy u/s.10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and pending disposal of the appeal, they are also entitled to file a petition for stay u/s.10-B of the said Act.

8. This Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioners, grants liberty to the p