C.R.P.No.3977 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 02.02.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 21.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

C.R.P.No.3977 of 2016

and C.M.P.No.20155 of 2016

1. The District Collector,

Ariyalur.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Ariyalur.

3. The Tahsildar,

Ariyalur.

4. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

Highways and Rural Works,

Ariyalur.

5. The Assistant Engineer,

Highways Department,

Ariyalur.

... Petitioners

Vs

Karunagaran

... Respondent

Page 1 of 20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3977 of 2016

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution

of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 28.01.2016 made

in E.A.No.12 of 2012 in E.P.No.107 of 2006 in O.S.No.388 of 1994 on

the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

For Petitioners

: Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar

Special Government Pleader(CS)

Assisted by

Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Ramachandran

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against fair and

decreetal order dated 28.01.2016, passed by the learned Principal District

Munsif, Ariyalur, in E.A.No.12 of 2012 in E.P.No.107 of 2006 in

O.S.No.388 of 1994, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the

petitioners under Section 47 of C.P.C.

2.

The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the

respondent and another in O.S.No.388 of 1994, for mandatory injunction,

thereby directing the petitioners 1 to 3 herein to issue patta for the suit

property in favour of the respondent by updating the revenue records and

Page 2 of 20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3977 of 2016

carryout the same in all revenue records and also for permanent

injunction. The case of the respondent is that the suit property was

already declared in favour of his mother viz., Srimathi Andal, in the suit

in O.S.No.2317 of 1973. In the said suit, the State government was also

restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the respondent. Thereafter, they had put up two storied building along

with continuous northern portion. On the strength of the said decree, they

also applied for transfer of patta before the petitioners herein. However,

they have not passed any order. Hence the suit.

3.

The said suit was resisted by the petitioners herein by way of

filing written statement by stating that there is no legal notice under

Section 80 of C.P.C., issued by the respondent before filing the suit. The

respondent and another have encroached upon the road poramboke

belongs to the Highways department in survey No.546/1 to an extent of

26 X10 ft., 260 sq.ft., and constructed pucca two storied terrace building.

Therefore, the respondent and another are the encroachers and they had

constructed two storied terraced building without any permission and

Page 3 of 20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3977 of 2016

without any right over the road. Therefore, they are not entitled for any

patta. The validity of the decree against the road proamboke belonging to

highways department is being questioned and the decree excluded the

road as per the filed measurement book. The petitioners also are taking

steps to remove the encroachment over the highway proamboke.

4.

Further avert that the previous decree obtained in

O.S.No.2317 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyallur,

cannot declare the highways road proamboke belonged to the respondent.

The recital in description of property in the said suit that the street is

excluded from the said decree. The Assistant Settlement Officer also

clarified and demarked the survey and the boundaries in the year 1924

itself. The street survey alone was taken place in the year 1942 and the

entire village was taken up for survey under the Estate Abolition Act,

1962. Therefore, the buildi