Madras High Court
Smt. D. Rukmani Ammal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 April, 2015
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29-04-2015
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 21284 of 2014
and
Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 21285 of 2014
Smt. D. Rukmani Ammal .. Petitioner in WP No. 21284
D. Ravindran .. Petitioner in WP No. 21285
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Fort St. George
Chennai
2. The District Collector
Tuticorin District
Tuticorin
3. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Represented by its Managing Director
Chennai - 5
4. The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
N.G.O. Colony Extension
Perumalpuram
Tirunelveli - 7
.. Respondents in both the
5. S. Sudharsan Writ Petitions
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in connection with
the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings
ref.No.Na.Ka.D3/20560/12 dated 24.07.2013 and quash the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Sundar
in both the Writ Petitions
^For Respondents : Mr. S. Chandrasekaran
Government Advocate for RR1 and 2
in both the Writ Petitions
Mr. K. Chellapandian
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. P. Mahendran, Government Advocate
for RR3 and 4
Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai for R5
in both the Writ Petitions
:COMMON ORDER
In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the second respondent. The respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions are common and identical. Therefore, counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents have advanced common arguments for consideration of this Court. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are related to each other. According to the petitioners, the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 141/4, 142/1 and 142/2 in Mappillaiurani Village, Tuticorin Taluk and District belonged to their ancestors and they were in possession and enjoyment of those lands for several decades. It is the further case of the petitioners that the aforesaid lands have been subjected to partition between the petitioners' family members on 29.07.1987 in which specific extent of lands comprised in Survey No.141/2 was allotted to the petitioner in WP No. 21284 of 2014 and the lands in Survey Nos. 141/4 and 142/1 were allotted to the petitioner in WP Nos. 21285 of 2014. According to the petitioners, apart from the aforesaid lands, they own 46 acres of land which is situate adjacent to these lands. It is the specific case of the petitioners that lands measuring about 38.5 acres in Survey Nos. 133/3, 133/4, 138/2, 138/3, 1384B, 139/3, 139/4, 140 as well as the lands which are the subject matter of these writ petitions namely Survey Nos. 141/4, 142/1 and 142/2 in Mappillaiurani Village, Tuticorin Taluk have been in possession and enjoyment of their predecessors in interest for several decades and they converted these lands as salt pans by investing several lakhs. Even according to the petitioners, while the revenue authorities have issued patta in respect of the aforesaid lands, patta has not been given to the lands which are in dispute namely Survey Nos. 141/4, 142/1 and 142/2 and they are classified as "assessed to waste" in the revenue records. Even though the lands have been classified as mentioned above, the petitioners have been paying tax to such lands and therefore they ought to have been given settlement patta for having been in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The petitioners claims to have been in possession of these lands for several decades and by virtue of such long and continued possession, they have perfected title over these lands by adverse possession against the government.
3. While the facts are so as stated above, on 26.02.2013, the Tahsildar, Tuticorin had issued a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act indicating that the lands in the occupation of the petitioners are required for construction of houses for poor and marginalised people through the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. According to the petitioners, even though they have submitted their objections, it was refused to be received by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin and eventually, another notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act was passed on 07.03.2013. As there was a threat for dispossession, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No. 175 and 176 of 2013 respectively on 29.04.2013 before the Sub Court, Tuticorin for a declaration to declare that they are the owners of the lands in dispute and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In the suit, the petitioners also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein namely (i) Tahsildar, Tuticorin (ii) Revenue Divisional Officer and (iii) District Collector to grant patta to them in respect of the aforesaid lands. After enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, granted an order of injunction on 31.01.2014 till the disposal of the suit with a specific direction to both the parties to cooperate for disposal of the suit within six months. The defendants in the suit have also filed their written statement. However, due to transfer of the Presiding Officer the suit was not posted for hearing. While so, it is alleged by the petitioners that the officials of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board have unlawfully trespassed into the lands which are in their occupation under the guise of carrying out soil test. According to the petitioners, such inspection carried out by the officials of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is in violation of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A. Nos. 1208 and 1204 of 2014 for contempt of the order passed by the Civil Court. The petitioner in WP No. 21284 of 2014 also filed I.A. No. 846 of 2014 in O.S. No. 175 of 2013 to implead the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as defendants in the suit.
4. In the meantime, the fifth respondent allegedly trespassed into the suit property by claiming that he was entrusted with the task of constructing a building in the land. In such circumstances, the petitioners have jointly filed a suit in O.S. No. 364 of 2014 in which the fifth respondent also filed a written statement. In the written statement, the fifth respondent has stated that the second respondent herein has granted permission to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 24.07.2013. According to the petitioners, they came to know about the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the second respondent only after receipt of written statement filed by the fifth respondent. Such an order dated 24.07.2013 of the second respondent is contrary to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the petitioners, the second respondent has no authority to pass the order dated 24.07.2013 granting "enter upon permission" to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board or the fifth respondent without prior permission of the government. Therefore, challenging the order dated 24.07.2013 of the second respondent, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.
5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit interalia prayed for vacating the order of interim injunction granted by this Court on 05.01.2015 in MP (MD) No. 3 of 2014 in WP (MD) No. 21284 of 2014. According to the second respondent, the petitioners themselves have admitted that the lands in question have been classified as "assessed to waste" in the revenue records while so, they cannot assert any individual right, interest or title over such lands. It is also stated that the government is the paramount titleholder of the lands which are classified as poromboke lands or "assessed to waste" as per Revenue Standing Order No.15 and if any such land is not required for the government for any purpose, then the second respondent is entitled to assign such land to poor agricultural labourers or landless poor. The second respondent also referred to GO Ms. No.1887, Revenue Department dated 08.09.1976 by which the Government ordered to set apart 811.09 acres of "Assessed to waste" dry land in Mappillaiurani Village, including the lands in question, for assignment for dwelling purpose in future. According to the second respondent, the lands in question are required for providing residential houses to 444 poor houseless people who lost their huts during eviction of encroachment within the corporation limit. For rehabilitating them land measuring an extent of 1.49.5 hectares in S.F. No.141/2 and 0.61.0 hectares in Survey No.141/4 measuring a total extent of 2.10.5 hectares was already set apart pursuant to GO Ms. No. 1887, Revenue Department dated 08.09.1976. Further, the land in Survey No.141/2 was earmarked for residential purpose in the Prohibitory Order Book as per GO Ms. No.1887 dated 08.09.1976. While so, the claim of the petitioners that there was a partition among the family members on 29.07.1987, much after GO Ms. No.1887 dated 08.09.1976 will not confer them any right over the lands. According to the second respondent, after inspecting the lands in question, in order to comply with due process of law, a notice under Section 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act were issued. The petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to show their possession even in the civil suits filed by them. At any rate, mere filing of civil suit will not cloth with any title or right or interest on the petitioners over the lands in question. The second respondent also brought to the notice of this Court that as per the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos. 16675 and 16923 of 2012, to accommodate 500 families, a project was launched with financial assistance from both the Central and State Government titled Rajiv Awas Yojana. As per the project, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board proposed to construct 444 houses approved by Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 20.01.2014 to rehabilitate the displaced persons in the development of national hgihways. The project is a time bound project and unless it is completed in 18 months, the funds allotted has to be returned back. The beneficiaries of the project are 444 landless poor labourers. In such circumstances, the respondents 3 and 4, with the permission of the second respondent, took possession of the lands in question and called for a tender for construction of houses. The tender was published in leading newspapers on 08.06.2014 and the tender was awarded to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent also brought heavy machineries and sufficient men to commence the project and at that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained interim injunction. The second respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions to enable them to complete the project within the time.
6. The third and fourth respondents have filed a separate counter affidavit contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The lands in question have been earmarked for a public purpose even as early as during 1976. The respondents 3 and 4 have commenced the project work even during August 2014 and it continued till 05.01.2015 when interim injunction was granted by this Court. The petitioner had already filed civil suits in which an application has been filed to implead the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The petitioners claim to have right and title over the lands in question which is denied by the respondents 3 and 4. When there are disputed questions of facts, this Court cannot adjudicate it under Article 226 of The Constitution of India and the only recourse available to the petitioners is to file civil suit. In this case, even admitted by the petitioners, civil suits have been filed and pending. At the instance of the petitioners, the project meant for a public purpose cannot be stalled. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. The fifth respondent filed a separate counter contending that the petitioners have filed the suit in O.S. No. 364 of 2014 in which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board was sought to be impleaded. However, in the said suit, the civil Court refused to grant an interim injunction. Suppressing the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions and obtained an order of interim injunction. The petitioners, having failed to obtain an order before the Civil Court have filed the writ petitions and obtained an order of interim injunction. It is further stated that pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent granting "enter upon permission" the site was handed over to the fifth respondent by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 13.11.2014. As far as the lands in question are concerned, they were handed over to the fifth respondent by the Tahsildar, Thoothukudi on 08.10.2013 itself. Thereafter, the lands were surveyed and boundary stones were laid in the presence of the officials of the Slum Clearance Board. Subsequently, the Slum Clearance Board made a paper publication on 08.08.2014 calling for tender to construct the houses for the poor. On 12.11.2014, the Board accepted the tender of the fifth respondent and the site was handed over to him on 13.11.2014. On the same day, a "Bhoomi Pooja" was performed in the presence of officials of the Board. Immediately, the fifth respondent started the excavation work by installing heavy machineries. Even though the petitioners witnessed the above, they remained silent and after one month from the date of commencement of the project, they have filed the writ petitions. In such circumstances, the fifth respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
8. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit repudating the various averments made in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. In the reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, would contend that the civil suit filed by them would bind the respondents 1 and 2 and consequently, the respondents 3 and 4 or the fifth respondent will not be conferred with any better right to enter upon the lands in question on the basis of "enter upon permission" given by the second respondent. Such permission granted by the second respondent, during the pendency of the civil suit, is nothing short of contempt of the orders passed by the civil court. Further, the respondents did not deny the possession of the petitioners in the lands in question and therefore, the petitioners cannot be evicted without due process of law. Therefore, the award of tender in favour of the fifth respondent cannot be permitted to be implemented and the possession of the petitioners has to be protected. The assignment of lands by the second respondent in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 and the consequential award of tender in favour of the fifth repsondent is without jurisdiction or authority of law, especially during the pendency of the civil suit.
9. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The petitioners claim that the lands in question, along with other lands, were owned and possessed by their predecessors in title. According to the petitioners, the lands belonged to their ancestors have been partitioned among their family members on 29.07.1987 in which the lands comprised in Survey No.141/2 was allotted to the petitioner in WP No. 21284 of 2014 and the lands in Survey Nos. 141/4 and 142/1 were allotted to the petitioner in WP Nos. 21285 of 2014. From the date of such partition, according to the petitioners, they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands and converted these lands as salt pans by investing several lakhs of rupees. However, it is the admitted fact that for the adjoining lands measuring 38.5 acres in various survey numbers, the revenue authorities have recognised the possession of the petitioners and issued patta. In so far as the lands in question are concerned, admittedly, patta has not been issued. Even according to the petitioners, the lands in question are classified in the revenue records as "assessed to waste" to which they have sought for issuance of patta on the ground that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same for several decades. It is also admitted that on 07.03.2013, a notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act was issued to the petitioners and on receipt of the same, apprehending dispossession, the petitioners filed suits in O.S. No. 175 and 176 of 2013 respectively on 29.04.2013 before the Sub Court, Tuticorin for a declaration to declare that they are the owners of the lands in dispute and for a consequential permanent injunction in which an order of injunction was granted on 31.01.2014 till the disposal of the suit with a specific direction to both the parties to cooperate for disposal of the suit within six months. In the suits, the petitioners also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein namely (i) Tahsildar, Tuticorin (ii) Revenue Divisional Officer and
(iii) District Collector to grant patta to the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid lands. Thus, it is evident that the claim of the petitioners for issuance of Patta in respect of the lands in question is the subject matter of the suits filed by them. In other words, as on today, the lands in question are classified as "assessed to waste" to which the government is the paramount title holder. During the pendency of the suits, as the respondents 3 to 5 allegedly trespassed in to the lands in question, the petitioners have jointly filed the suit in O.S. No. 364 of 2014 in which the fifth respondent also filed a written statement. Only on receipt of copy of the written statement filed by the fifth respondent did the petitioners came to know about the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the second respondent granting "enter upon permission" to the respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioners, such an order passed by the second respondent is per se in violation of the orders passed by the Civil Court and contrary to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In such circumstances, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions.
10. Admittedly, the right of the petitioners over the lands in question cannot be considered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Such right of the petitioners can only be decided by the civil court, after trial. As mentioned above, there are three civil suits filed by the petitioners for various relief and they are pending. Therefore, it is proper for the petitioners to establish their title to the lands in question only in the civil suits.
11. As regards the impugned order passed by the second respondent, it was passed by the second respondent on the basis of the requisition made by the requisitioning authority namely the respondents 3 and 4. According to the respondents 3 and 4, they have submitted a proposal dated 08.05.2013 for utilising the lands in question for the purpose of putting up residential houses to accommodate those landless poor labourers who were dispossessed from their hutment at the time of widening the roads. In and by the proposal dated 08.05.2013, the respondents 3 and 4 sought permission to enter into the lands in question to complete the project on the ground that necessary funds were sanctioned for undertaking the project. As per the project, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board proposed to construct 444 houses approved by Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee to rehabilitate the those persons who were displaced at the time of widening the road by Hgihways authorities. According to the respondents 3 and 4, the project is a time bound project and unless the project is completed in 18 months, the funds allotted has to be returned back. The beneficiaries of the project are 444 landless poor labourers. The second respondent, considering the above fact that the project is meant to benefit the public at large especially to accommodate the poor landless labour who were dispossessed earlier, the second respondent granted such permission to the respondents 3 and 4 on 24.07.2013.
12. Pursuant to such permission granted by the second respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 have flouted tenders for construciton of houses. Such tender was published in leading newspapers on 08.08.2014. In the tender process, the tender submitted by the fifth respondent was accepted and therefore, by an order dated 12.11.2014, the possession of the lands in question were ordered to be handed over to the fifth respondent and he has also taken possession on 13.11.2014. According to the fifth respondent, they have commenced the project and at that time or even before, the petitioners were never in possession of the lands in question. The petitioners also did not produce any documentary evidence to show their possession over the lands in question. As mentioned above, admittedly, patta was not granted to the petitioners in respect of the lands in question and it is classified as "assessed to waste" in the revenue records. At any rate, as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 3 and 4, the possession of the lands in question has been handed over to the fifth respondent who also commenced the construction of building. It is also to be pointed out that in the third suit jointly filed by the petitioners, being O.S. No. 364 of 2014 for a bare injunction, the trial court did not grant any interim order. Having failed in their attempt to get an order of injunction before the Civil Court, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions before this Court.
13. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the second respondent - District Collector has no right or authority to pass the impugned order. Such a contention urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. The second respondent is competent to issue the order impugned in this writ petition especially when the lands in question are classified in the revenue records as "assessed to waste". The title to such land vests with Government and the second respondent, as an instrumentality of the Government, is having full right to issue such enter upon permission. Even as per the impugned order, the District Collector has only issued "enter upon permission" to the respondents 3 and 4 and it cannot be said to be an order transferring the right or assigning the land in favour of any one. The impugned order also stipulates a condition that the land has to be utilised only for the purpose for which "enter upon permission" was granted. The lands in question is not private land of any individual and therefore also, the authority of the second respondent cannot be questioned by the petitioners. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, reference was made to GO Ms. No.1887, Revenue Department dated 08.09.1976 by which the lands in question were ordered to be set apart for the purpose a public purpose. Further, the land in Survey No.141/2 was earmarked for residential purpose in the Prohibitory Order Book as per GO Ms. No.1887 dated 08.09.1976. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is without any authority. Even otherwise, the petitioners claim right over the lands in question by virtue of a partition among the family members on 29.07.1987. However, even before such alleged partition, the Government issued the order in GO Ms. No.1887 dated 08.09.1976 and therefore also, the claim of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It is also seen from the counter affidavit of the second respondent that a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 16675 of 2012 directed the respondents therein to find out an alternative place to accommodate those who were dispossessed or displaced during the widening of the National Highways. Pursuant to such direction, the respondents 3 and 4 have sent a proposal to the second respondent and considering the same, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent granting "enter upon permission" to the respondents 3 and 4.
14. Yet another aspect for consideration is that the second respondent, after inspecting the lands in question, ordered to remove the encroachments. Pursuant to such direction, the Tahsildar, Tuticorin issued a notice under Section 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Admittedly, these notices issued by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin invoking the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act have not been challenged by the petitioners. While so, it is not open to the petitioners to file the present writ petitions questiioning the correctness of the order passed by the second respondent.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that by the impugned order, the second respondent had assigned the rights over the lands in question in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 and such assignment is in violation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Such a contention urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be pressed into service in this case for the reason that the petitioners are not the owners of the lands in question and their ownership, if any, is yet to be decided. Furthermore, the petitioners have not produced any document to show their possession over the lands in question. The lands in question have been classified in the revenue records as "assessed to waste" and therefore the Government is the paramount titleholder of such lands and no one other than the Government shall assert any right, title or interest In such circumstances, pending the suits filed by the petitioners for bare injunction, the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be said to be hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of (G. Annadurai vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram District and others) reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 296 to contend that the petitioners' have admitted that the lands in question has been classified as "assessed to waste" thereby government's title to the property is accepted. In such event, it is not open to the petitioners to even file the suit for declaration beyond the statutory period. In para Nos. 29 and 30 of the above decision, it was held by this Court as follows:-
"29. No doubt, the revenue authorities cannot adjudge the declaratory rights, in so far as title to the properties is concerned. But, in the case on hand, as rightly observed by the Court below, there is a dispute over the title of the suit properties and even the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiffs and others have admitted that the suit property is a Government poromboke and that is why they have sought for assignment of house sites. When the government's title to the property is accepted, then it is not open to him to seek for any declaration beyond the statutory period.
30. From the material on record, it could be deduced that after suffering adverse orders at the hands of the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk Office, Kanchipuram District and also the District Collector, Kancheepuram, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has chosen to file a suit in the month of December 2012 for a declaration, as if he had perfected title by adverse possession. Such an approach by the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to indirectly prohibit the competent authorities from exercising their statutory functions, and that the same cannot be permitted. Even taking it for granted that the Civil Courts still have jurisdiction under common law remedy i.e., to adjudicate declaratory rights, which the revenue authorities are not competent to do so, in the case on hand, where an order under Section 6 of the Act, has already been passed in the year 28.0.2008, it could be noticed that, after nearly four years from the date of the order made under Section 7 of the Act and after confirmation, in an appeal vide order dated 21.12.2011, the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has sought for a declaration of title, during December 2012, which in the opinion of this Court is a clear attempt to indirectly to put spokes in the wheels of the functioning of the authorities under the Act."
17. The ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to this case. In this case also, the petitioners have filed civil suits for declaration after receipt of the notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, issued by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin. Further, the petitioners did not challenge the notices issued to them by the Tahsildar, Tuticorin invoking Section 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act till date and it reached a finality.
18. Above all, even as early as 1976, the Government issued GO Ms. No.1887, Revenue Department dated 08.09.1976 by which it ordered to set apart 811.09 acres of "Assessed to waste" dry land in Mappillaiurani Village, including the lands in question, for assignment for dwelling purpose in future. As per the said Government Order, the land measuring an extent of 1.49.5 hectares in S.F. No.141/2 and 0.61.0 hectares in Survey No.141/4 measuring a total extent of 2.10.5 hectares was already set apart besides that the land in Survey No.141/2 was earmarked for residential purpose in the Prohibitory Order Book as per GO Ms. No.1887 dated 08.09.1976. Thus, the lands in question is an objectionable land for being assigned in favour of any individual. On the basis of this Government order and as per the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos. 16675 and 16923 of 2012, to accommodate 500 families, a project was launched with financial assistance from both the Central and State Government titled Rajiv Awas Yojana. As per the project, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board proposed to construct 444 houses approved by Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 20.01.2014 to rehabilitate the displaced persons who were dispossessed at the time of widening of road. As this project is a time bound project and it has to be completed in 18 months, failing which the funds allotted has to be returned back, the respondents 3 and 4 sought permission to take possession of the lands. Having regard to all the above facts, permission was accorded by the second respondent as per the impugned order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents 3 and 4 took possession of the lands in question, flouted tenders and awarded the contract for construction of houses in favour of the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent also, after taking possession of the lands in question, commenced the project i.e., construction of building to some extent. In such circumstances, this Court can only observe that the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court at the instance of the petitioners. The order passed by the second respondent deserves no interference by this Court.
19. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29-04-2015 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai
2. The District Collector Tuticorin District Tuticorin
3. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Represented by its Managing Director Chennai - 5
4. The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board N.G.O. Colony Extension Perumalpuram Tirunelveli - 7 B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh WP (MD) Nos. 21284 & 21285/2014 29-04-2015