BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31/01/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.8456 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.9141 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.555 of 2005 Meenatchiammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Executive Engineer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Alangulam. 2.P.Prammanayagam. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Letter Na.ka.A2/15/04 dated 25.08.2005 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in SR.No.384/3 at Thenkasi Road, Alangulam. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Veera Kathiravan ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.V.Vijayakumar forR1 Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Vallinayagam for R2 :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.
Mr.M.Vallinayagam, for the second respondent.
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first
respondent dated 25.08.2005 and also consequently forbear the respondents herein
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in
SR.No.384/3 at Thenkasi Road, Alangulam.
4. The impugned order passed by the first respondent refers to the
property bearing Survey No.424, stating that the owner of the property bearing
Survey No.424 is encroaching upon the poramboke land and putting up a
construction and to direct him to remove the encroachment. The Impugned order
also directs that if the encroachments are not removed, the same will be done by
the respondent at the cost of the petitioner. Challenging the impugned order,
the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
5. The second respondent in the counter affidavit would state that while
admittedly the property of the petitioner is in Survey No.384/3, which can be
evidenced from the sale deed filed in the writ petition, the impugned order
refers to Survey No.424 and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance
over the impugned order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
state that taking advantage of the averment contained in the sale deed, he
should not be permitted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the
property in survey No.384/3.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already
approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.1064 of 2004 and an order
of interim injunction was also granted in I.A.NO.2000 of 2004 dated 08.12.2004,
in respect of the property in Survey No.384/3. Therefore, making it clear that
the respondents shall not take advantage of the quoting of survey No.424 in the
impugned order to interfere with the property of the petitioner bearing Survey
No.384/3, the writ petition is dismissed.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to make a
representation to the first respondent explaining the position by enclosing
various documents and on such representation made by the petitioner, the
respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously
as possible.
8. Needless to say that if the survey No.424 does not belong to the
petitioner, it is open to the respondents to proceed further.
9. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P, W.V.M.P are also dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
nbk
To
1.Executive Engineer,
Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Alangulam.