Compliance with provisions of law is necessary before taking action to remove possession, and respondents must consider the petitioner's reply and representation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his notice dated 12.04.2013 in Ref.No.Ma.Aa 5 Na.Ka.No.12/2013 pertaining to the property, viz., house, ground and premises bearing Door No.12, New No.25, Ibrahim Sahib Street, 2nd Lane, George Town, Chennai 600 001 and quash the said notice.)

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.           The writ petition of the year 2013 is listed today because after an interim order passed by this Court, the file was not found available in the records and finding it out later on and on the request of the respondents, a direction for reconstruction was given and after reconstruction of the file, it is now listed before the Court.

2. The writ petition has been filed to challenge the notice issued by the respondent Corporation to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner in the land in question.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the long possession of the property in dispute, the respondents intend to take action to remove the encroachment. It is despite production of the sale deed and proof of possession from the year 1940. The documents filed along with the writ petition are sufficient to prove the possession of the land in question and therefore only while the writ petition was earlier preferred by the petitioner, it was appropriately decided by this Court by issuing a direction that the respondents may proceed with the matter but by complying the provisions of law. In the instant case, the respondents are proceeding to remove the possession without following the provisions of law and therefore, the petitioner was left with no option but to file this writ petition.

4. It is further submitted that the writ petition is listed after several years and a copy of the counter affidavit filed in the year 2014 is not with the counsel, thus, the said counter may not be taken into consideration and otherwise, when prima facie case was found in favour of the petitioner, this Court passed an interim order and is operating till date. It is submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and has not encroached the land belonging to the school, but is in possession of his own land which gets proved by perusal of the sale deed and even the other documents which includes the birth certificate apart from the records issued where the address on which the petitioner is residing has been given and all these documents are sufficient to prove the long possession of the petitioner. The prayer is, accordingly, to allow the writ petition.

5. The writ petition has been seriously contested by the respondents. It is submitted that the land in question is of a school and for which a reference of the old record has been given in para 6 of the counter. The land was acquired by the Corporation in the year 1913-1914 for a model school for a Muslim community under the order of the Special Deputy Collector. However, the petitioner had encroached on the property of the Corporation. In view of the above and as per the judgment of this Court, notice was caused by invoking Section 222 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, thus, it is incorrect to state that without compliance of the provision, the action has been initiated.

6. It is further stated that before taking action, the Corporation had called for the records and found the land in question is not in the name of the petitioner or her ancestors, but is in the name of the school and therefore, the petitioner has no right in the land in question. It is also submitted that the sale deed does not give right to the petitioner to possess the land belonging to the municipal corporation, when the corporation did not enter into a sale deed with the petitioner or her ancestors. A party selling the land not belonging to them would not create a right in favour of purchaser or take away the right of the owner which in this case is the municipal c