Madras High Court
Abdul Sthars.Junas vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 1 February, 2021
WP.No. 1764/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
WP.No.1764/2021 & WMP.No.1975/2021
[Video Conferencing]
1.Abdul StharS.Junas
3.A.Nazeer
4.N.Srinivasan .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to the Government
Revenue Department, Fort St George
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris.
4.The Tahsildar
Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1
WP.No. 1764/2021
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the
respondents, their men, servants, agents or any one claiming under them
from in any manner evicting the petitioners from the lands measuring an
extent of 4.93 acres in S.No.4819/2, Kakathope Village, Fingerpost,
other than by way of due process of law.
For Petitioners : Mrs.Al.Gandhimathi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]
(1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is
disposed of by this order.
(2)Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents.
(3)The sons of Tvl.E.M.Razack, E.M.Saliah, E.M.Aziz and
V.Nanjundaiah, had filed the present writ petition.
(4)Tvl.E.M.Razack, E.M.Saliah and E.M.Aziz are brothers and they were
granted lease along with others in respect of the lands in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
RS.No.4819/2 etc., upto Ootacamund Taluk and Town for the purpose
of ''Grow More Food Campaign'' in terms of G.O.Ms.NO.494,
Revenue Department dated 01.03.1949 and it was extended for a
period of another ten years vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent
dated 03.08.1949 in R.Dis.No.6898/49, subject to certain conditions.
(5)The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 31.07.1965 in
D.Dis.No.14973, refused to extend the lease for an extent of 4.93 acres
in S.No.4819/2 of Ooty Town and challenging the same,
Tvl.E.M.Razack, E.M.Saliah and E.M.Aziz preferred an appeal before
the then Board of Revenue, Government of Madras, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005. The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Prohibition
and Excise representing the Board of Revenue, vide proceedings dated
22.02.1968 in B.P.Rt.No.905[B], has rejected the appeal and
consequently, vacated the interim order dated 05.09.1965. The said
persons preferred a revision before the Revenue Department of the
Government of Tamil Nadu, who vide G.O.Ms.No.2175, Revenue
Department dated 03.10.1981, has rejected the said revision as devoid
of merit and consequently, vacated the interim orders with a further
direction, directing the 3rd respondent to take necessary steps to
alienate the lands in S.No.4819/81 admeasuring to an extent of 6.12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
acres of Ooty Town in favour of Tamil Nadu Milk Producers'
Federation Limited.
(6)Accordingly, they were issued with EvictionNotice and challenging
the same, they filed a petition dated 16.11.1982. The Office of the
Assistant Collector, Coonoor, after taking into consideration, the said
appeal petition, vide proceedings dated 03.09.1983 in
K.Dis.No.27781/82, has rejected the appeal of the said persons as well
as one Nanjundaiyar with a further direction that they should vacate
the lands immediately.
(7)The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 12.02.1985, in
Na.Ka.Yu.3.No.100580/83, has rejected the appeal petitions filed by
Tvl.E.M.Razack, E.M.Saliah, E.M.Aziz and Nanjundaiyar dated
12.10.1983 with a further direction to take appropriate action in terms
of the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,
1905. Tvl.E.M.Razack, E.M.Saliah, E.M.Aziz and Nanjundaiyar,
aggrieved by the proceedings/orders of the 3rd respondent dated
12.02.1985, filed a revision before the Special
Commissioner/Commissioner of Land Administration, viz., the 2nd
respondent herein, who vide proceedings / order dated 28.12.1986 in
Pa.Mu.F/20956/85, has vacated the interim order and dismissed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
said revision. In the interregnum, the above said persons, including
Thiru.V.Nanjundaiyar, has filed OS.No.156 of 156 of 1997 on the file
of the Court of District Munsif, Uthagamandalam, for permanent
injunction restraining the respondents herein, who were arrayed as the
defendants in the said suit, from interfering with their possession and
the suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
29.10.2001 by the Court of District Munsif at Udhagamandalam.
(8)The plaintiffs in OS.No.156 of 1997, viz., the respective fathers of the
petitioners herein, aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal in
AS.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the District Judge and
Appellate Authority of the Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalam. The
Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2002,
dismissed the said appeal suirt, granting three months time for
eviction. The appellants therein, aggrieved by the said dismissal of the
Appeal Suit, filed Second Appeal in SA.No.965 of 2002 on the file of
this Court and it was entertained and an order of injunction was
granted on 21.06.2002 in CMP.No.7719 of 2002 in SA.No.965 of
2002, initially for a period of four weeks and later on, vide order dated
31.12.2002, it was made absolute. The said Second Appeal itself came
to be dismissed as not pressed vide judgment dated 28.10.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
(9)In the interregnum, all the original petitioners/fathers of the
petitioners herein died and their sons had filed the present writ
petition, stating among other things that they have cultivated
vegetables and are ripe for cultivation and at this juncture, steps are
being taken to dispossess them from the lands admeasuring an extent
of 4.93 Acres in S.No.4819/2 of Kakathope Village, Fingerpost,
Udhagamandalam Taluk, the Nilgiris District.
(10)Mrs.Al.Gandhimathi, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that this Court may take into consideration sympathetic view of
the matter, especially, in the light of the fact that the vegetables grown
in the lands in question, are ripe for cultivation and if some breathing
time is given, the petitioners may cultivate the crops/vegetables.
(11) Per contra, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that all the
endeavours made by the fathers of the petitioners herein before all
Forums, had ended in failure and would further add that mere long
possession would not confer upon any right upon the petitioners for
the reason that admittedly, it was only a lease and it cannot be treated
as a perpetual one and prays for dismissal of this writ petition as
devoid of any merit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
(12)This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials placed before it.
(13)This Court, in the earlier paragraphs, had narrated the results of the
proceedings initiated by the fathers of the petitioners herein and they
have failed to succeed in their endeavour. The only point urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the vegetables are ripe
for cultivation, some breathing time may be granted. However, the
petitioners had failed to come out with any affidavit as to the time they
require to cultivate the vegetables and vacate the lands peacefully and
in the absence of the same, this Court is not in a position to consider
the said plea.
(14)No doubt, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, also exercises equitable jurisdiction. But
a writ of mandamus cannot be ordered based on sympathy alone.
(15)The petitioners appear to have developed an impression that since
their fathers were in possession of the lands from the year 1949, they
developed a perpetual right to remain in possession and in the
considered opinion of the Court, in the light of the above facts and
circumstances, especially dismissal of various proceedings initiated by
the fathers of the petitioners herein and that all the proceedings had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
ended in dismissal, the prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be
granted. This Court finds no merit in this writ petition.
(16)In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[MSNJ] [AANJ]
01.02.2021
[2/2]
AP
Internet:Yes
To
1.The Secretary to the Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department, Fort St George
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris.
4.The Tahsildar
Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP.No. 1764/2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.,
AP
WP.No.1764/2021
01.02.2021
[2/2]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
