Availability of alternative accommodation as a factor in deciding the validity of an eviction notice under the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.

2. It is the stand of the Petitioner that a house plot was assigned to her mother with an extent of three cents by an order issued by the 2nd Respondent / Tahsildar, Ponneri of Ponneri Taluk. In fact, Survey No.126 of Chennivakkam Village was subdivided into Survey Nos.126/1 and 126/2, as mentioned in FMB Sketch. The Petitioner's mother's house as well as the other house, which were constructed on the plots assigned to the village are situated in Survey No.126/2. Based on the representation made by the concerned persons to the Block Development Officer, seeking issuance of patta for their respective house, an enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer, who inspected the place and gave a letter dated 16.02.2001 to the 2nd Respondent / The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri recommending the issuance of patta.

3. When that be the fact situation, the 2nd Respondent / the Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri had issued a notice on 16.04.2015 to the Petitioner and others, as per Section 7 of Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

4. The specific case of the Petitioner is that she along with others met the 1st Respondent / District Collector, Thiruvallur in-person. She showed the documents including the order of assignment order issued by the 2nd Respondent and she was assured by the 1st Respondent that no eviction would be carried out. However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that on 13.05.2015, the 2nd Respondent had issued a impugned notice as per Section 6 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 without providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to hear her views and further, she was directed to vacate the house / premises within one week from the date of receipt of Notice.

5. Further, this Court in W.P.No.15109 to 15113 of 2015 passed an order on 21.05.2015 stating that the parties are directed to maintain status quo for two weeks etc., Moreover, on 18.05.2018 the 1st Respondent / the District Collector, Thiruvallur passed an order directing the 2nd Respondent / Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri to vacate the Petitioner and other residents from the premises and file a report with photo. The 2nd Respondent came in-person and orally informed the Petitioner and others that their house would be demolished on 07.08.2018.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contents that the Impugned Order dated 18.05.2018 issued by the 1st Respondent / the District Collector, Thiruvallur directing the 2nd Respondent / the Tahsildar, Ponneri to vacate the Petitioner and other residents from the premises is an illegal one. Further, without providing an alternative accommodation, the issuance of notice dated 18.05.2018 is illegal and an arbitrary one. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

7. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents that the 1st Respondent / the District Collector, Thiruvallur on 18.05.2018 had dismissed the Appeal and directed the encroachers occupying the land being Tank Poromboke in Survey no.126 in Chennivakkam Village to vacate the land or otherwise a direction would be issued to vacate them etc., In fact, the land 0.03 cents was assigned to one Tmt.Sumathi, mother of the Petitioner on 21.11.1973, which does not pertain to the property in question. It is further represented on behalf of the Respondents that taking advantage of the said assignment, the assignee encroached upon the present land, which is classified as 'Tank Poromboke'. As such, notices were issued to the concerned encroachers under the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which was assailed in W.P.Nos.15109 to 15113 of 2015 and an order of Status Quo was obtained. Later, other encroachers, who filed W.P.Nos.15139 to 15145 of 2015 had filed an Appeal under Section 10 of the Act, 1905 before the 1st Respondent and this Court on 18.10.2016 passed a