Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JJ.
Akash Gupta and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA), Land Administration Department and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 6531 of 2024
Decided On : 09-03-2024
For the Petitioner:S. Rajasekar, E.K. Amalnath, Advocates.
For the Respondent: A. Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to grant interim protection to a building pending the final disposal of a statutory revision petition, but may refuse to grant stay or injunction against other structures or areas not directly related to the subject matter of dispute.
Headnote:
Land Encroachment Act - Protection of Building Pending Revision - The court granted interim protection to the building of the petitioners for three weeks to enable them to avail the remedy of revision, but refused to grant stay or injunction against the compound wall.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents from proceeding with eviction proceedings until the final disposal of the statutory revision petition filed under Section 10A (c) of the Land Encroachment Act. The petitioners had filed an appeal against an order under the Act, which was dismissed, and subsequently filed a revision. The respondents had initiated eviction proceedings and attempted to demolish the compound wall and part of the building belonging to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted interim protection to the building for three weeks to enable the petitioners to file a revision, but refused to grant stay or injunction against the compound wall. The protection granted would end after three weeks, and the parties would be governed by further orders in the revision or further action undertaken.
Issues: The main issue was whether the building of the petitioners should be protected pending the final disposal of the statutory revision petition filed under the Land Encroachment Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant interim protection to the building for three weeks to allow the petitioners to file a revision, but refused to grant stay or injunction against the compound wall, as it was at a distance from the building and not the subject matter of dispute.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioners three weeks of protection for the building, after which the protection would end and the parties would be governed by further orders in the revision or further action undertaken. The respondents were entitled to earmark the encroached area.
ORDER :
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, J.
(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents their men, subordinates or agents from proceeding further with the eviction proceedings against the petitioners until the final disposal of the statutory revision petition filed under Section 10A (c) of the Land Encroachment Act preferred against the order passed by the 2nd respondent District Collector in Na.Ka.No.626/2024E3 dated 02.03.2024.)
1. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for Mr.E.K.Amalnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued against the petitioners, the petitioners filed an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed on 02.03.2024, however, the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioners only on 07.03.2024 when the respondents stuck notice on the building of the petitioners. The petitioners immediately filed a revision on 08.03.2024, however, in the evening and today morning, the respondent officials came along with JCB to demolish the compound wall and some part of the subject building.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the month of December, 2023, a civil suit was also filed seeking injunction against these respondents. However, the respondents have not appeared in the said civil suit bearing O.S.No.69 of 2023 and as such, the order of injunction is not passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case some part of the land is Meikkal Poramboke, the petitioners are ready for exchange of land, however, the construction of the petitioners needs to be protected.
4. Learned State Government Pleader submits that the petitioners have purchased the property in S.Nos.443/2B and 443/1B2, whereas, Meikkal Poromboke is in S.No.443/6. The petitioners have not purchased the property in S.No.443/6, however have encroached on S.No.443/6.
5. It appears that even the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The petitioners have filed a revision before the first respondent, however, revision would only lie before the State Government. It appears that there is much distance between the building and the compound wall. The documents placed on record and the order for removal of encroachment are of different properties. It is not the subject matter of dispute that S.No.443/6 is a Meikkal Poromboke.
6. With a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to file a revision, we may protect the building of the petitioners for an interim period, so as to enable the petitioners to avail the remedy of revision. However, the compound wall, which is at a much distance, cannot be protected.
7. In the light of that, we pass the following orders:
(i) We are not inclined to grant stay and/or injunction against the respondents qua the compound wall in question. However, for a period of three weeks from today, further steps with regard to the building inside the compound wall many not be taken.
(ii) This protection is granted for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioners to avail the remedy of revision.
(iii) On the lapse of three weeks, the present protection granted shall come to an end and the parties would be governed by further orders that may be passed in the revision and/or further action undertaken.
(iv) The respondents are entitled to earmark the area, which according to the respondents the petitioners have encroached.
8. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.7261 of 2024 is closed. W.M.P.No.7260 of 2024, petition filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition is allowed, inasmuch as the petitioners have paid separate set of court fees.
