Unauthorized constructions must be removed within a specified period, and individuals can approach the authorities for grant of patta for government poramboke land.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the fourth respondent an order in Na.Ka.A8/4858/2015, dated 02.12.2022 and quash the same.

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor / 2nd respondent for the deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 26.02.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.3930 of 2018.)

Common Order:

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. W.P (MD) No. 28544 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner, to quash the impugned notice issued by the fourth respondent under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in Na.Ka.A8/4858/2015, dated 02.12.2022, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Cont.P(MD)No. 685 of 2018 in W.P(MD)No.3930 of 2018, dated 30.11.2022.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of the Arulmighu Sree Seelaikariamman Kovil Annadhanam Seithu Vazhipadupavarkal Sangam. The property comprised in Survey Nos.43/12 and 43/13 was originally classified as a ''Kaliyidam and Kalimanai'', which is a vacant land and patta was granted in favour of one Muniyandi and subsequently, after the death of the said Muniyandi, the said land has been classified as ''Kaliyidam and Kalimanai''. The said land was utilized for the Temple functions and other occasions and patta has been granted in favour of the then Trustee of the Temple, namely, U.Gurusamy. During rainy seasons, the said land is not feasible for conducting the festival and worshipping the Temple, therefore, funds have been collected from the public and constructed a marriage hall for the purpose of conducting the festivals as well as the marriage.

3. While being so, one Kandasamy, has encroached upon a portion of the pathway and constructed a house in Survey No.17/12, which is classified as a ''street''. Aggrieved over the same, one A.Mahalingam filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.6040 of 2016, seeking for removal of encroachment made by the said Kandasamy and this Court, by order, dated 30.08.2017, directed the authority concerned to remove the encroachment, after issuing notice to the concerned parties and following the statutory procedure. Challenging the notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the said Kandasamy filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.11 of 2018 before this Court and this Court, by order, dated 03.01.2018, dismissed the Writ Petition. Due to personal enmity, the said Kandasamy filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.3930 of 2018, to remove the encroachment in Vetrilaimurianpatti Village streets and this Court, by order, dated 26.02.2018, disposed of the Writ Petition to remove the encroachment. Pursuant to the said order, dated 26.02.2018, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 08.03.2018, directed the said Gurusamy to remove the encroachment in the Temple. The said Gurusamy, also filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.10146 of 2018, to quash the impugned order, dated 17.04.2018 issued by the fourth respondent therein and this Court, by order dated 08.06.2018, dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn, since the encroachment was removed.

4. Since the petitioner''s Sangam has been in possession and doing the activities of marriage and other functions in Survey Nos.43/12 and 43/13, which is a vacant land/Kaliyidam, the petitioner''s Sangam made a representation to the official respondents to issue patta in favour of the said Sangam. Pending consideration, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.14887 of 2021, directing the first respondent therein to dispose of the representation of the petitioner''s Sangam, dated 20.06.2021 to issue patta in favour of the Temple and this Court, by order, dated 27.08.2021, disposed of the Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said order, dated 27.08.2021, the fourth respondent has recommended to issue patta to the petitioner. While being so,