M.Vadivel vs The Executive Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 17652 Mad

                                                            1      S.A.(MD)NO.944 OF 2011

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 27.08.2021

                                                   CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                          S.A.(MD)No.944 of 2011 and
                                             M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011

                     M.Vadivel                         ... Appellant / Appellant /
                                                             Plaintiff
                                                     Vs.
                     1. The Executive Officer,
                        Vadamadurai Town Panchayat,
                        Vadamadurai.

                     2. The District Collector,
                        Office of the District Collector,
                        Dindigul District.

                     3. The Tahsildar,
                        Vedasandur Taluk Office,
                        Dindigul District.       ... Respondents /Respondents /
                                                        Defendants
                                   Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
                     C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2010
                     rendered in A.S.No.87 of 2008 on the file of the Additional
                     Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, confirming the decree and
                     judgment dated 25.04.2007 rendered in O.S.No.96 of 1997 on
                     the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
                     Vedasandur.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/5
                                                              2         S.A.(MD)NO.944 OF 2011



                                   For Appellants    : Mr.S.Balasubramanian
                                   For Respondents: Mr.R.Ragavendiran,
                                                    Government Advocate.

                                                        ***


                                                  JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.96 of 1997 on the file of the

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, is the

appellant in this second appeal.

2. The suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration

and permanent injunction. The plaintiff was examined as

P.W.1. On behalf of the local body, the executive officer was

examined as D.W.1. Documents were marked on either side.

By judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007, the trial Court

dismissed the suit. The same was confirmed by the first

appellate Court on 27.10.2010 in A.S.No.87 of 2008.

Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be filed.

3. Though the second appeal is of the year 2011, it

has not been admitted till date.

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

3 S.A.(MD)NO.944 OF 2011

4. The Courts below have concurrently found that the

plaintiff was paying ground rent to the local body and had put

up a superstructure and running a petty business which is

adjacent to road. It has been established beyond doubt. Even

according to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the

local body and it was let out on payment of ground rent.

Merely because, the plaintiff was allowed to be a licensee for a

long number of years, that will not confer any right to

continue in possession. This is a well settled proposition. That

is why, the trial Court declined to grant the relief of

declaration and permanent possession against the defendants.

No substantial questions of law arises for consideration. At the

same time, I must also hold that when the appellant is in

possession of the suit site, the respondents will have to follow

due process of law before evicting the appellant. Merely

because this appeal has been dismissed, that does not

necessarily mean that the appellant should be evicted. I have

only sustained the judgment of the Courts below that the

plaintiff cannot be granted the relief of declaration, nor the

defendants can be restrained by a decree of permanent

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

4 S.A.(MD)NO.944 OF 2011

injunction. That does not mean that the appellant should be

thrown out. It is a policy decision that has to be taken by the

defendants. If the defendants take a policy decision to evict

the plaintiff, then they have to necessarily follow the

procedure set out in the relevant statute.

5. With this observation and clarification, this second

appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                              27.08.2021

                     Index    : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes/ No
                     PMU

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To:

1. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.

3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

5 S.A.(MD)NO.944 OF 2011

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU

S.A.(MD)No.944 of 2011

27.08.2021

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