The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred for challenges against eviction orders under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, necessitating appropriate appeals against such orders.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Kangayam in A.S.No.62 of 2017 (originally received as A.S.No.17 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court at Dharapuram), dated 19.08.2019, in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned District Munsif at Kangayam in O.S.No.168 of 2009 dated 16.03.2017.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants before me.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

4. O.S.No.168 of 2009 is a suit for declaration that the order passed by the Tahsildar in Na.Ka.No.4517/2007/A1, dated 20.03.2009, is null and void and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in 'A' schedule mentioned property and for costs.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the 1^st plaintiff, namely Krishnasamy Gounder, had purchased the property by way of a sale deed, dated 19.07.1959. They would state ever since the date of purchase, the 1^st plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the same by indulging in the acts of agriculture, and by digging a well and utilizing the well for the purpose of irrigation. The 1^st plaintiff also obtained an electricity connection for the well in S.C.No.227 in the year 1992. Though the owner of the property is the 1^st plaintiff, the 2^nd plaintiff/1^st plaintiff's son was impleaded as a co-plaintiff in the suit.

6. On the west of the property runs the Lower Bhavani Project (LBP) canal which is maintained by the Public Works Department. The LBP canal is said to be situated in S.F.No.674/1B. The canal had been created 30 years ago. During re-survey of the property, the plaintiffs' holding was measured and it came to 2 acres and 40 cents, and a Patta was also issued to that effect. However, the actual extent that had been purchased by the 1^st plaintiff was 2 acres and 81 cents.

7. According to them, the 4^th defendant had instigated defendant Nos.1 to 3 to initiate the proceeding for eviction against the plaintiffs as according to the 4^th defendant, the plaintiffs were in occupation of poromboke lands. Consequently, an order of eviction was issued by the Tahsildar which was challenged by the plaintiffs in W.P.No.8000 of 2008. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the order of the Tahsildar and consequential order of disconnection of electricity were set aside.

8. Pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court in W.P.No.8000 of 2008, the Tahsildar initiated a fresh proceeding and after hearing on both sides passed an order on 20.03.2009.

9. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition was filed before this Court in W.P.No.6773 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner/1^st plaintiff to approach the jurisdictional civil Court to establish his right, title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. On the basis of the liberty granted by the Court, the 1^st plaintiff presented the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

10. On entering appearance, the 2^nd defendant/Revenue Officer, Kangayam filed a written statement which was adopted by the District Collector, Tiruppur as well as the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Elect