The Municipality lacks authority to initiate eviction proceedings without a gift deed for public land, confirming that prior claims do not legally restrict subsequent challenges to jurisdiction.

ORDER :

The Revision Petitioner challenges the judgment and decree in CMA.No 8 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Judge Mayiladuthurai, confirming the order of the Commissioner and Estate Officer, Mayiladuthurai Municipality dated 27.08.2019.

2.The crux of the issue is the proceedings initiated by the Municipality under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act,1975. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the very invocation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1975, is wholly unsustainable and consequently, the impugned proceedings issued by the Municipality is vitiated and liable to be set aside.

3.I have heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality.

4.Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the petitioner's predecessors in interest had formed a layout and also got it approved from the respondent Municipality. One of the conditions for approving the layout was that an extent of 2796 square feet was to be set apart for a childrens' park. However, admittedly, the vendor of the revision petitioner violated the said approval condition, by putting up an unauthorized residential building in the said site earmarked for park and also subsequently sold it to the revision petitioner.

5.Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel would also take me through the earlier litigation, touching the very same subject property and also refer to the various orders passed, including the order in WP. No.10793 of 2018.

6.It is the primordial contention of Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the layout condition required an area to be earmarked for childrens' park, the same has admittedly not been handed over and there has been violation of the approval condition. However, he would contend that as long as the municipality is not the owner of the subject area earmarked as childrens' park and there is also no vesting of the said land in the respondent municipality, it is not open to the respondent to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1975. He would also contend that, today, admittedly the land, which was to be earmarked for childrens' park, is not available and a residential building has been constructed and the only remedy open to the respondent Municipality is to acquire the lands and instead, it is not open to them to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1975, treating the revision petitioner as an unauthorized occupant.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner, Tirupur Corporation vs. Vasanthakumari , reported in 2020 (1) CTC 636 and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in PT.Chet Ram Vashist ( dead) by Lrs vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 .

8.Per Contra, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the predecessors in interest of the revision petitioner had challenged the proceedings initiated by the Municipality and they were unsuccessful in the earlier round of litigation. In such circumstances, he would contend that the petitioner is now estopped from objecting to the action initiated by the Municipality, as they are bound by the result of the earlier proceedings, which were taken admittedly by the predecessors in interest of the revision petitioner.

9.Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would also state that this Court, in WP.No.10793 of 2018, had given liberty to proceed in accordance with law, seeking eviction and taking possession of the subject property and therefore, it is only in pursuance of said liberty that the present proceedings have been taken and therefore, he would contend that ther