Supreme Court - Daily Orders
N.S. Ramaraj vs The District Collector on 26 April, 2024
Bench: Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9068/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-03-2024
in WPMD No.8012/2024 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Madras At Madurai)
N.S. RAMARAJ Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.94335/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.94334/2024-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T.
IA No. 94335/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 94334/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 96501/2024 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Date : 26-04-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv.
Mr. Ma Gouthaman, Adv.
Mr. M Naveen, Adv.
Mr. L Siva Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sharuk Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Rv Shaarumathi, Adv.
Ms. Dakshita Sangwan, Adv. Mr. G Jai Singh, Adv.
Mr. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Adv. For M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR For Respondent(s) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.04.30 18:50:33 IST Reason: UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner 2 and carefully perused the material placed on record.
2. The controversy relates to ownership over the subject property where the petitioner has constructed a residential house.
According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the subject property and that the house has been constructed in a lawful manner.
3. On the other hand, the respondent’s case appears to be that the petitioner is an encroacher upon a water body (odai).
4. The petitioner had previously approached this Court on three occasions. Most recently, an order was passed on 05.04.2023 in Miscellaneous Application D.No.8968/2023 in M.A.No.1323/2022 in SLP(C)No.11466/2022 to the effect that status quo re: demolition shall be maintained till the Revisional Authority passes an appropriate order.
5. Apparently, with a view to circumvent the said order, the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (`TANGEDCO’) disconnected power supply to petitioner’s residence. The petitioner challenged this action before the High Court, where it was pretended that since this Court had only directed to maintain status quo re: demolition, the power supply could be disconnected. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, has restored the power supply and has further directed the Revisional Authority to decide the pending Revision Petition within a period of six weeks. The High Court has further observed that if the Revision Petition is dismissed, the District Collector will not be obligated to wait further and can remove the encroachment forthwith. Apprehending that the petitioner might not get fair trial before the Revisional Authority, the instant Special Leave Petition has been filed. Though the High Court in its judgment has made no adverse remarks against the petitioner’s claim, his grievance mainly is that in a Civil Suit, filed by him, the Principal District Court, Srivilliputtur, vide order dated 06.10.2023, has directed that “status quo to be maintained both side.” This interim order is still operative. The petitioner apprehends that in view of the directions issued by the High Court, 3 the District Collector might overlook the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court and demolish the house if the Revision Petition is dismissed.
6. There seems to be no basis for such an apprehension. The District Collector is duty bound to abide by the injunction order granted by the Civil Court. So long as there is an injunction order directing the authorities to maintain status quo, it is needless to say, the Collector cannot in violation of that order, demolish the property.
7. With this clarification, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
8. As a result, all pending interlocutory applications, including the one for intervention/impleadment, stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (POOJA SHARMA) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)