Madras High Court
M.Chinnasamy vs The Block Development Officer on 26 August, 2008
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/08/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.78 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 1.M.Chinnasamy 2.K.Chinnasamy ... Petitioners vs. 1.The Block Development Officer, Mannachanallur T.K, Mannachanallur. 2.The President, Vazhaiyur Panchayat, Vazhaiyur P.O., Chettikulam (Via) Mannachanallur T.K., Trichy Dist - 621 104. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering into the petitioners patta land and evicting them except under due process of law and consequentially directing the respondents to award compensation for the trees that were uprooted from the petitioners land. !For Petitioners ... Mr.R.Babu ^For Respondent No.2 ... Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran ****** :ORDER
The prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' patta land and evicting them except under due process of law.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners claims that they had purchased the land in question in the year 1983 by a registered sale deed, which was registered as document No.1413/1983. The value of the land is mentioned as Rs.300/-. But the title of the vendor is not mentioned in the said document. On the contrary, it is found that if there is any further encumbrance found in the said property, the vendor and his legal heirs have agreed to indemnify the petitioners from such encumbrances.
3. Pursuant to the sale deed, the petitioners have been given patta by the authorities and, therefore, in the light of the same, the petitioners now states that they being the lawful owners of the said property, they cannot be evicted except by due process of law. They have also expressed the apprehension that the first and second respondents may forcibly take over the land and use it for a play ground. It was also stated that on 13.10.2007, the first and second respondents entered the land with JCB Machines and razed the thatched shed, which was used as a cattle shed and also removed the standing trees found in the said land.
4. The writ petition was admitted on 04.01.2008 and an interim- injunction was granted on the same day. Subsequently, on behalf of the second respondent, a petition was filed to vacate the interim-injunction granted on 04.01.2008. When the application came up for hearing, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the petitioners were the encroachers of the said land and the land is a vacant site. There was no cattle shed or standing trees. It was also stated that under the Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (Anna Renaissance Scheme), it was decided by the Panchayat to make use of the land as a playground for the boys and youth of the village. In accordance with the decision taken by the Panchayat dated 04.06.2007, a tender was called and the work was started on 06.10.2007 on the basis of the tender awarded for an amount of Rs.49,696/-. The tender was given to a contractor and the work was also completed on 30.10.2007. The amount was released to the contractor, by name one Mr.Ashok.
6. The petitioners, being the residents of the said village, were completely aware of these developments but, however, chose to file the present writ petition only in January 2008, suppressing all these information in their affidavit. It was also stated that the playground was ready. Because of the injunction granted by this Court, the youth and children were not able to make use of the same.
7. In the light of the rival contentions, it must be seen whether the petitioners' prayer can be countenanced by this Court. Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bishan Das v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1570. He also emphasised the passage found in paragraph-14, wherein it has been stated that the Government cannot forcibly take a private property of a citizen, thereby making the mockery of the constitutional right. Such possession can be taken only by resorting to legal forums. Therefore, he insisted if at all the respondents wanted property, they should have approached the appropriate civil Court and not take law in their own hands.
8. The judgment in question relates to a dharmasala established by a trust. When it was not properly administered, it was stated that Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is the only answer for stating right the affairs of the Trust and the Municipal Authorities cannot step into the shoes of the trustees and deprive the trust of its properties. That is not the present case.
9. The learned counsel also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Nath Educational Society, Sirsa v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1996 Allahabad 187 for the very same proposition. A reading of the said judgment shows that in that case the State did not dispute the ownership of the petitioner. In fact, very much accepted the ownership of the petitioner. The decision cited by the learned counsel has no assistance. In the present case, the very proprietary right of the petitioners is in question and the document shown by them does not help the case of the petitioners any further.
10. Under these circumstances, the prayer in the Writ Petition cannot be countenanced by this Court. If the petitioners still believes that they have right and title over the said property, it is for them to establish the same before the appropriate civil Court. Except for the above observation, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
11. If the petitioners are so advised to file a suit, they can always file an application for waiver of a notice under Section 80. The Court, which will be seized of the matter, will definitely consider the waiver of notice, having regard to the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court in the last seven months.
SML/sr To
1.The Block Development Officer, Mannachanallur T.K, Mannachanallur.
2.The President, Vazhaiyur Panchayat, Vazhaiyur P.O., Chettikulam (Via) Mannachanallur T.K., Trichy Dist - 621 104.