The main legal point established is the importance of following due process of law and the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in land dispute cases.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings dated 08.12.2015 bearing NaKa/8085/2015/Oo1 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)

1. The writ petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would aver as follows:

1.1. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of a landed property situated at Old Survey No.1056/2, New Survey No.1192/1, admeasuring an extent of 3 Acres and 2 Cents at Vellode Village in Perundurai Taluk for several decades and recognizing the possession of his family, his grandfather, namely Thiru.Nachi was issued with conditional patty by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Statutory levies have also been regularly paid in respect of the said property.

1.2. In the year 1997, the respondents 2 and 3 as well as the Superintendent of Police, Erode District attempted to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and therefore, he filed O.S.No.585 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Sub-Judge, Erode, praying for a Declaration and for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2001, has dismissed the Suit as to the prayer for Declaration of Title and however, granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit property except by following due process of law and the said judgment and decree has become final.

1.3. The respondents 2 and 3 along with the Superintendent of Police, Erode District and the General Manager, BSNL, once again sought to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said landed property and therefore, he filed W.P.No.22237 of 2010, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and the said writ petition came to be allowed, vide order dated 18.10.2011. The respondents 1 to 3 in the said writ petition, aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal in W.A.No1951 of 2012.

1.4. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 06.01.2015, having noted the fact that proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 [in short “TNLE Act”], observed that the learned Single Judge, without reference to the respondent’s/petitioner’s right of appeal by invoking Section 10 of TNLE Act, has held that remedy open to the respondent/petitioner is to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Division Bench further observed that the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.22237 of 2010 after a delay of 9 years i.e., in the year 2010 and the same was allowed on 18.10.2011 and even before filing the writ petition, 0.06.0 hectares of land were transferred to Police Department, by order dated 08.06.1999 and possession was handed over on 20.03.2001 and the said portions were also utilized by the said Department and in respect of the remaining area, it is open to the first respondent/writ petitioner to file an appeal, if he is so advised, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with a further direction directing the Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, if such an appeal is filed.

1.5. The petitioner herein, in pursuant to the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 06.01.2015 in W.A.No.1951 of 2012, has filed an appeal dated 02.03.2015 before the second respondent/Appellate Authority. The petitioner, Revenue Assistant, Village Administrative Officer, Firka Surveyor as well as Advocate of the petitioner had participated for en