JUDGMENT

Challenge in this second appeal is made to the the Judgement and Decree dated 31.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.36 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Jude, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, Vellore District, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.1993 passed in O.S.No.358 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam. 2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3.The defendant in O.S.No.358 of 1986 is the appellant in the second appeal.

4.Suit for permanent injunction.

5.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the land comprised in survey No.37 Ac.2.60 is classified as Mayanam Poromboke in the Village accounts of Panapakkam and no longer in use for the said purpose and the plaintiffs encroached upon the said land during 1970 and put up thatched sheds in an extent of about 0.4 cents and running the business called Thattudadais as petty vendors and the income earned from the business is the only livelihood of the plaintiffs and they are carrying on the said business for more than 15 years without any interruption and their possession had not been disturbed. Recently, the defendant had proposed to auction the land in the possession of the plaintiffs to the third parties and allowed them to collect Sungam and when the plaintiffs refused to the abovesaid act of the defendant, the defendant threatened the plaintiffs that they would be removed from the suit property. The defendant has got no right or control over the suit property and not entitled to collect any Sungam by way of the auction in favour of the third parties. The suit property belongs to the Government and the plaintiffs had been paying "B" memo charges to the Government for their occupation of the suit property and the revenue authorities had directed the plaintiffs not to pay any amount to the defendant qua the suit property and also agreed to recommend the plaintiffs' name for the grant of assignment in their favour. However, the defendant had been endeavouring to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs and hence, the need for the suit for appropriate releif.

6.The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts and admitted that S.No.37, 1.39 acres is the Mayanam Poromboke and disputed that the plaintiffs had encroached into the suit property measuring about 4 cents and put up thatched sheds and running the business etc., as claimed in the plaint and according to the defendant, Mayanam Poromboke vests with the defendant panchayat as per the provisions of the Panchayat Act and as per the rules framed thereunder, the defendant is entitled to regulate the usage of the Mayanam Poromboke and the defendant is entitled to sell the right to collect the fees from those persons, who had encroached in the Mayanam Poromboke in public auction held annually and the highest bidder in the public auction held every year used to collect the fees from the encroachers inclusive of the plaintiffs, who had encroached and put up the sheds in the Mayanam Poromboke about 5 years ago and not 15 years ago as claimed in the plaint. The fees collected by the defendant from the encroachers by way of the Sungam, who had occupied the Mayanam Poromboke, are spent for the benefit of the panchayat and therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant panchayat is not entitled to collect Sungam by way of the auction of the suit property to the third parties is not legally sustainable and the defendant has passed the resolution dated 08.07.1983 to construct 10 shops in the suit property and let out the shops for rent and the proposals are pending with reference to the same and sensing the same, the plaintiffs have come forward with the false suit on unsustainable grounds. The plaintiffs are not entitled to question the lawful auction initiated by the defendant for regulating the usage of the suit pr