BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/10/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.7002 of 2008 AND M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 Of 2010 S.Manian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai. 2.The Superintendenting Engineer, Periyar Vaigai Division, 2nd Division, P.W.d. Madurai. 3.The Tahshildhar, Vadipatti, Madurai. 4.The Revenue Inspector, Alanganallur Firka, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioners from their respective lands, comprised in Survey.No.345 at Kallanai Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. !For Petitioner ... No appearance ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar :ORDER
The Petitioner has filed the petition seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus
forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner’s from his land,
comprised in Survey No.345 at Kallanai Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai
District.
2. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that he was in
continuous possession and enjoyment of 1.5 acres of Nanja land comprised in
Survey No.345 of Kallanai Village. This land is situated on the outer bit of
the southern boundary of one village tank called Kesavaneri Kulam, but, the said
land is not situated in the water stagnated area. This land is covered by three
sides by patta lands and the fourth side by the tank. But, the revenue records
classified this land as ‘tank poramboke’. Therefore, the respondent/the Revenue
Department considered the petitioner’s occupation as unobjectionable one and
thereafter, they also levied tax under B-Memo. Subsequently, in the year 1967,
the third respondent Tahsildar of Vadipatti Taluk called the petitioner for an
enquiry under section 7 of the Tamilnadu Encroachment Act, 1905 and after
attending the enquiry he explained the details relating to the land. On
24.07.96, the third and fourth respondents forced the petitioner to move out
from the land and after that the petitioner has filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.10940 of 1996 along with a W.P.M.P.No.14572 of 1996 wherein an order of
injunction was also passed against the respondents. Further, the same was also
disposed on 01.02.2002 stating that if the respondents wish to evict the
petitioner, they may do so after following the procedure prescribed by law.
3.It is submitted that the respondents have not taken any action,but, all
of a sudden, the second respondent without giving any prior notice refused the
petitioner to enter into his land even to perform Pooja to the Malaiamman
Temple.
4.Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order of
injunction forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from his
land, comprised in Survey No.345 at Kallanai Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai
District.
5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents submits that this is the third writ petition. After the petitioner
failed to establish his right in the two other earlier writ petitions, once
again, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Further, it was also
submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of occupying the above said tank
poramboke/reservoir area and always encroaches upon the Government land by
extending his agricultural occupation during the agricultural season, since the
petitioner was found in encroaching upon the Government, in the year 1996, the
respondents removed the encroachments put up by the petitioner after conducting
an enquiry under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act 1905. Therefore,
the petitioner filed the writ petition also in W.P.No.10940/1996 before the
Principal Bench of this Court, but, the said writ petition was disposed off with
a direction to the respondent, if the respondents wished to evict, may do so
after following the procedure prescribed by law. In compliance of the aforesaid
direction, the respondents dispossessed the petitioners after holding an
enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner once again filed another Writ Petition
No.2929/2004 before this Court for the same Survey No.345, Kallanai Village,
Vadipatti Taluk, i.e. tank poramboke, and the said writ petition was also
dismissed as not pressed. Once again the present writ petition was filed in the
name of the present writ petitioner, and hence he prayed for dismissal of the
same with cost as it is a frivolous one.
6.The submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents that the petitioner is in habit of encroaching upon the tank
poramboke land has to be accepted. Further, the record also shows that the
petitioner had filed two other writ petitions successively, one after the other
the said writ petitions came to be dismissed as not pressed. In fact, in one of
the orders passed by the Principal Bench in W.P.No.10940/1996, a direction was
given to the respondents that if they wish to evict the petitioner, they can do
so after following the procedure prescribed by law. Subsequently, on the basis
of the order passed by this Court, the writ petitioner was issued with a notice
and subsequently, he was evicted from the land covered in survey No.345,
Kallanai Village, Vadipatti Taluk. As against that action, the petitioner filed
a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2929/2004 and the said writ petition was also
subsequently dismissed as not pressed.
7.Therefore, when his two earlier writ petitions filed by him came to be
dismissed as not pressed, the third writ petition is not maintainable on merits.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
am
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai.
2.The Superintendenting Engineer,
Periyar Vaigai Division, 2nd Division,
P.W.d. Madurai.
3.The Tahshildhar,
Vadipatti,
Madurai.
4.The Revenue Inspector,
Alanganallur Firka,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.