Madras High Court
Mariappan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 July, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No.17227 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)No.14429 of 2023
Mariappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankarankovil Revenue Division,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents and their subordinates in the
revenue Departments by taking any coercive steps without disposing this
petitioner’s objection petition dated 04.11.2022 with respect to the property the
parotta stall shop building and house in Natham S.No.357/1A1A, in
Veerasigamani Village in Sankarankovil Taluk in Tenkasi District.
For Petitioner :Mr.F.X.Eugene
For R-1 & R-2 :Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
Heard Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for
respondents 1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any coercive steps
without disposing of the objection petition filed by the petitioner, dated
04.11.2022 with respect to the property in which the petitioner is running a
parotta stall in Natham S.No.357/1A1A of Veerasigamani Village,
Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is running parotta stall in the
building bearing Door No.77 in Veerasigamani Village and the parotta stall is
facing towards the main road and on the rear side of the parotta stall, the
petitioner is having his residential house.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
4. The further case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the
said shop for more than three decades and he purchased the said property vide
registered sale deed, dated 18.09.2017. He admitted that he has filed a civil suit
in O.S.No.53 of 2014 against the second respondent and the then District
Collector of Tirunelveli District for permanent injunction. Though the suit in
O.S.No.53 of 2014 was dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner in
A.S.No.1 of 2016 was also dismissed, it is stated that the second appeal filed by
the petitioner was allowed and the judgment and decree of the appellate Court
confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, was set aside by this
Court with a direction that the petitioner should be evicted in the manner
known to law and that, his possession shall not be disturbed till then.
5. It is on the basis of the judgment made in the second appeal, the
petitioner has now challenged the notice which is issued under Section 7 of the
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’),
in this writ petition.
6. The petitioner earlier claimed title to the property and on the basis
of his title, he prayed for permanent injunction against the respondents herein
in the suit in O.S.No.53 of 2014 before the Principal District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
Sankarankovil. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the
petitioner was also dismissed. Later, when the petitioner filed a second appeal,
ultimately, the second appeal was disposed of on the question of law raised by
the petitioner.
7. It is seen that the civil Court has categorically held that the
petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit is an encroacher. The findings of the
Courts below categorizing the petitioner as an encroacher, was confirmed by
this Court in the second appeal. However, the respondents were directed to
resort to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Till
such time the petitioner is evicted by due process of law, this Court directed the
respondents not to disturb his possession. The second appeal was disposed of
by this Court vide judgment, dated 22.09.2020. After the disposal of the second
appeal, the second respondent Tahsildar, has issued a show cause notice under
Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner has treated this notice as an order under
Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and filed an appeal before
the District Collector under Section 6 of the Act. When the appeal is pending
before the District Collector, the petitioner has moved the above writ petition
for the relief prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
8. The facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ
petition is misleading. When the petitioner's possession is not lawful and the
civil Courts have categorically rejected the plea of title, this Court in the second
appeal filed by the petitioner, has directed that the petitioner cannot be
dispossessed otherwise than by due process of law. When the respondents have
taken action for eviction by following due process of law, the petitioner has
immediately approached this Court by filing this writ petition challenging the
show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Act.
9. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. The petitioner
who is an encroacher has been squatting over the public property for several
years and has now made an attempt to stall the proceedings in which he has no
defence.
10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that this writ petition is
devoid of merits and the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean
hands by suppressing the material facts. The entire affidavit filed by him in this
writ petition is not only misleading but also mischievous in the sense that the
petitioner, who has no defence in the proceedings initiated for eviction, has
made an attempt to stall the eviction by due process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
11. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable by the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the
account to be opened by the Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court, Madurai, in the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai, for donating
law books to a Separate Section in the name of “Madurai Bench of Madras
High Court” in Kalaignar Centenary Library, Madurai. Out of the funds
collected under this Account, the Honourable Administrative Judge in
consultation with the Committee of Judges consisting of three senior
Honourable Judges, who are permanently stationed at Madurai will purchase
the books of their choice and hand over the same to Library. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
18.07.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
To:
1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Thasildhar,
Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Kalakad, Nanguneri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Registrar Judicial,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17227 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
pm
W.P(MD)No.17227 of 2023
18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
