Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33561 of 2023 & 9.10.From the correspondences, it is seen that the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, while considering the application for assignment of land and the request of the petitioner in the review application, has recorded the fact that the subject land has been classified as B-2 land by the Cantonment Board. From the records, it is also seen that the land has been classified as Government Poramboke and has been treated as “time expired lease land”. However, by proceedings of the District Collector dated 18.11.2020, the request of the petitioner in the review application for assignment of land was rejected on the ground that the District Collector, Chengalpattu, had been advised to take over the time expired lease lands.

v. The petitioners are tenants holding over even after the expiry of the lease in terms of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act and that therefore, no proceedings for eviction can be initiated without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33561 of 2023 & termination of lease. The request of the petitioner for assignment of land is pending consideration before the Government (Revenue Department) and the representation of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the State. Similarly, the petitioner has also filed a revision petition in terms of Section 10-A of the Encroachment Act before the State Government. Therefore, the eviction of petitioners during pendency of the Statutory revision before the Government and the application for assignment is improper and against settled principles of law.

x. The representation that was submitted before the Government was also to the effect that all the four are willing to pay the market value.

46.Therefore, in all the representations the petitioner in the review application before the statutory authorities, Revenue authorities and Government on all earlier occasions, projected himself not only as the head of the family but also as a representative of all the four, namely, the petitioner in the review application, his two sons and his wife who are the petitioners in the present writ petition. Even though the first show cause notice issued in the year 2021 was in the name of the petitioner in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33561 of 2023 & review application and he filed a writ petition forbearing the respondents from taking any action or possession without following due process and obtained interim order, his two sons and wife enjoyed the benefit of interim order without approaching this Court. Therefore, the petitioners in the writ petition cannot plead ignorance of all the representations, communications that were from the father to protect the interest of all the family members as a whole. They made the Revenue officials believe that the petitioner in the review application alone is the karta or head of the family to represent on behalf of all. Notice under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act was issued on 22.08.2023 by the Tahsildar. Though this notice was in respect of the whole property, there was no independent appeal preferred before the District Collector by any other writ petitioners. Therefore, consciously, the petitioner in the review application and the writ petitioners made joint efforts in stalling the eviction proceedings through the father. The representation of the petitioner in the review application for assignment was rejected by referring to the policy decision of the Government not to assign the land which are time expired lease lands and had the petitioners in the writ petition also applied for assignment, the fate would have been the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33561 of 2023 & same. The petitioner in the review application as well as the writ petitioners belong to the same family. The fact that all the four have jointly obtained four different sale deeds in respect of ¼ share under each document would show that they intended to use the land for their industrial activity jointly.