BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/10/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD) No.12930 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 N.R.Algar Raja .. Petitioner Versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu through its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Director, Town and Country Planning Authority, Chennai. 3.The Commissioner, Theni-Allinagaram Municipality, Theni. .. Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the property, measuring 3 Acre 81 Cents comprised in S.No.107 and 1 Acre 36 Cents S.No.115 in Theni-Allinagaram in Theni District without adopting due process of law. !For petitioner ... M/s.R.Suriyanarayanan ^For respondents ... Mr.So.Paramasivam Government Advocate :ORDER
Heard Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, as well as Mr.So.Paramasivam, the learned Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is that the third respondent had purchased the property in question
from the petitioner’s brother, namely, Subramanya Raja, and that he is likely to
take steps to take possession of the property in question, which is said to be
in the possession of the petitioner.
3. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant under
his brother. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court stating that
the third respondent is threatening the petitioner and is attempting to cut down
the crops in the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus to
forbear the respondents from interfering in the property in question, in
S.Nos.107 and 115, in Theni Allinagaram, Theni District, without adopting the
due process of law.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had
submitted that the petitioner has filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.128 of 2010, on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, against his brother Subramanya
Raja, in respect of the tenancy rights in the property in question. It has also
been stated that the third respondent is also a party to the suit. It has been
further stated that it is for the petitioner to establish his rights in the
civil suit pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, in
O.S.No.128 of 2010.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the
records available, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant
the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. It
is noted that the petitioner has filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.128 of 2010, on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni, with regard to the tenancy rights,
in respect of the property in question.
6. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a
similar relief before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Such factual issues would have to be decided by the Civil Court
concerned based on the available evidence, both oral, as well as documentary.
As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
srm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Municipal Administration,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Town and Country Planning Authority,
Chennai.
3.The Commissioner,
Theni-Allinagaram Municipality,
Theni.