N.Vellaichamy Vs. 1 the District Collector - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/63227
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-05-2015
JudgeR.Subbiah
AppellantN.Vellaichamy
Respondent1 the District Collector
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated :05. 08.2015 coram the honourable mr.justice r.subbiah w.p.(md)no.10610 of 2015 and m.p.(md).nos.1 and 3 of 2015 n.vellaichamy ... petitioner vs. 1 the district collector office of the district collector, sivagangai. 2 the tahsildar office thasildhar , thirupathur taluk office thirupathur, sivagangai district. 3 the revenue inspector nerkuppai village , thirupathur taluk sivagangai district. 4 the village administrative officer33 aa,thaikoor group, thirupathur taluk, sivagangai district. 5 c. kalladiyan ( r-5 impleaded vide hon'ble court order dated 15/07/2015 in mp(md)2/2015 by rmdj) ... respondents prayer petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned notice dated 23.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal. !for petitioner ... mr.v.muthumani for m/s.right law associates ^for respondents ... mr.m.murugan government advocate for rr-1 to 4 mr.s.arivalagan for r-5 :order the writ petition has been filed praying this court for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned notice dated 23.06.2015 in form vi of tamil nadu act 3 of 1905 to vacate the petitioner and to quash the same.2. the case of the petitioner is that his father purchased the property situated in s.no.493/3, vanjinipatti village, thirupathur taluk, sivagangai district from one mangai baga konar through a registered sale deed for a sale consideration of rs.200/- and it has been duly registered before the sub- registrar office, thirupathur in document no.425/1970, dated 23.03.1970. the petitioner's father's vendor mangai baga konar purchased the property in the year 1943. the family members of the petitioner have been enjoying the property from the year 1943. the petitioner herein has been issued with the patta in patta no.666 for an extent of 5 cents in respect of 11.47 cents. the petitioner came to know that due to udr correction, some irregularities in the patta has been done. hence, he made a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent on 28.08.2014 and it has not been considered. the third respondent called upon the petitioner to vacate the land in s.no.697/30 on or before 26.03.2015. the said notice was issued at the instigation of the fourth respondent. hence, the petitioner herein approached this court in w.p.(md).no.4445 of 2015 and the same was disposed of on 26.03.2015 by observing that the impugned order is treated as show-cause notice and the petitioner was granted 15 days time to give his explanation and on receipt of such explanation, the respondents were directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. pursuant to the said order, on 31.03.2015, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent on 01.04.2015. the said representation was received by the respondent.3. in the mean time, the petitioner has approached the respondents to rectify the error that occurred at the time of udr with regard to the extent of the property. but the respondents without following the procedure, issued form 6 notice, dated 23.06.2015, to evict the petitioner from the property. challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.4. pending writ petition, this court has granted an order of interim stay in m.p.(md).no.1 of 2015. thereafter, the fifth respondent c.kalladiyan has taken out a petition in m.p.(md).no.2 of 2015 and got himself impleaded as fifth respondent in the writ petition and filed a vacate stay petition.5. it has been averred in m.p.(md).no.3 of 2015 that the writ petitioner, who is residing at vanjinipatti village by encroaching 20 feet cement road situated in s.no.697/30, constructed a compound wall and thereby, is making the said road as a narrow 10 feet road. the said 20 feet road is a cement road and it is coming from vanjinipatti village towards the scheduled caste colony. the said road is the only ingress and egress for the colony people. therefore, the village people as well as the vehicle riders are finding it difficult to use the said road. further a common drinking water pipe line is also situated in the said cement road. if any repair has to be done in the said pipeline, it would be very difficult for the colony people as well as for the vanjinipatti village people. hence, a complaint was lodged before the sub inspector of police, kandavarayanpatti police station as against the petitioner on 04.01.2014 and the same was registered in c.s.r.no.3 of 2014. the first respondent/the writ petitioner herein was summoned by the police and an enquiry was made and in the enquiry, the petitioner herein has produced the forged documents. hence, a first information report has been registered against the petitioner and he was arrested and released on bail. the authorities concerned directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment. but, he refused to do so. since the police officials failed to take any action, finally, a public interest litigation was filed before this court by the fifth respondent. in that writ petition, a direction was given to the third respondent to consider his representation within a period of 12 weeks. thereafter only, the third respondent issued an enquiry notice dated 22.12.2014 to the fifth respondent as well as the writ petitioner to attend the enquiry on 24.12.2015. both the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent appeared for enquiry. with the help of police force, the zonal deputy tahsildar measured the disputed survey number and found that there was encroachment made by the petitioner. it was finally communicated to him. thereafter also, the authorities have not taken any effective steps. the fifth respondent issued a contempt notice and filed a contempt petition no.328 of 2015. when the contempt petition was taken up for hearing, the third respondent has issued notice under sections 5 and 7 of the land encroachment act, 1905. the said notice has been duly served on the writ petitioner on 11.03.2015. thereafter, this court closed the contempt petition. but suppressing all these facts, the petitioner filed another writ petition in w.p.(md).no.4445 of 2015. but in the said writ petition, on 26.03.2015, this court has passed the following order: "therefore, the impugned order is treated as show-cause notice and the petitioner is permitted 15 days time to give his explanation and on receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. the writ petition is disposed of accordingly."6. the writ petitioner has also sent a reply to the impugned notice. after conducting full fledged enquiry, a notice under section 6 of the land encroachment act has been issued by the third respondent on 26.03.2015, after obtaining legal opinion from the special government pleader. but the petitioner refused to receive the notice. by suppressing all these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.7. it is the case of the respondents that unless the encroachment is removed, it is difficult for the colony people to use the road encroached by the petitioner.8. when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father has purchased the total extent of 11.47 cents in the year 1970 in the disputed survey number. but at the time of udr correction, erroneous entries were made in the udr register by wrongly mentioning the extent of land. in fact, the petitioner has already given a representation to the concerned authorities to rectify the mistakes which occurred at the time of udr survey.9. further, the matter is civil in nature. in fact, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in o.s.no.34 of 2015. but erroneously the notice under section 6 of the land encroachment act has been issued by the third respondent on 26.03.2015. therefore, the petitioner sought for quashing of the said order.10. the learned counsel for the fifth respondent replied that the 20 feet road situated in s.no.69/30 is a common road. the petitioner by encroaching the said road, constructed a compound wall. in fact, in the writ petition filed by the respondent in w.p.no.3657 of 2014, a division bench has directed the respondent to consider the fifth respondent's representation by an order dated 09.07.2014. thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a suit in o.s.no.36 of 2015 before the district munsif court, thirupathur to give a colour as if the matter is civil in nature. in fact, the authorities concerned inspected the disputed survey number and found that the petitioner encroached the government road. the petitioner herein by filing writ petitions one after another is only trying to interfering with the official respondents from evicting him from the property encroached by him.11. further, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that by go.ms.no.540 revenue [ld62].]. department dated 04.12.2014, the government has formed a committee to dispose of the disputes regarding the encroachment pursuant to the order passed by the first bench of this court in w.p.(md).no.3914 of 2015. the petitioner has also given a representation to the said committee. therefore, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the said committee.12. the learned government advocate submitted that the authority concerned has inspected the disputed property and found that this petitioner has encroached the government road and is thereby preventing the colony people and village people from using the said road. hence, after following the due process of law, the impugned notice has been issued and absolutely, there is no infirmity found in the impugned order. hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.13. keeping the submissions made on either side, i find that the petitioner was issued with impugned notice only by properly following the procedure. though very many contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is not necessary for this court to deal with all the contentions, since this court finds that the impugned notice has been issued only by following the procedure, i find that already this petitioner had made a representation before the committee, formed relating to redressal of grievances regarding the encroachment. since the petitioner's representation is pending before the said committee, the petitioner has to work out his remedy only before the said committee.14. therefore, i am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. accordingly, the same is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. to 1 the district collector office of the district collector, sivagangai. 2 the tahsildar office thasildhar , thirupathur taluk office thirupathur, sivagangai district. 3 the revenue inspector nerkuppai village , thirupathur taluk sivagangai district. 4 the village administrative officer33 aa,thaikoor group, thirupathur taluk, sivagangai district. .
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :

05. 08.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.10610 of 2015 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 3 of 2015 N.VELLAICHAMY ... Petitioner Vs. 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI. 2 THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE THASILDHAR , THIRUPATHUR TALUK OFFICE THIRUPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE REVENUE INSPECTOR NERKUPPAI VILLAGE , THIRUPATHUR TALUK SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4 THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER33 Aa,THAIKOOR GROUP, THIRUPATHUR TALUK, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 5 C. KALLADIYAN ( R-5 IMPLEADED VIDE HON'BLE COURT ORDER

Dated 15/07/2015 IN MP(MD)2/2015 BY RMDJ) ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned notice dated 23.06.2015 and quash the same as illegal. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Muthumani for M/s.Right Law Associates ^For Respondents ... Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate for RR-1 to 4 Mr.S.Arivalagan for R-5 :ORDER

The writ petition has been filed praying this Court for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the impugned notice dated 23.06.2015 in Form VI of Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1905 to vacate the petitioner and to quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased the property situated in S.No.493/3, Vanjinipatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District from one Mangai Baga Konar through a registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.200/- and it has been duly registered before the Sub- Registrar Office, Thirupathur in document No.425/1970, dated 23.03.1970. The petitioner's father's vendor Mangai Baga Konar purchased the property in the year 1943. The family members of the petitioner have been enjoying the property from the year 1943. The petitioner herein has been issued with the patta in patta No.666 for an extent of 5 cents in respect of 11.47 cents. The petitioner came to know that due to UDR correction, some irregularities in the patta has been done. Hence, he made a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent on 28.08.2014 and it has not been considered. The third respondent called upon the petitioner to vacate the land in S.No.697/30 on or before 26.03.2015. The said notice was issued at the instigation of the fourth respondent. Hence, the petitioner herein approached this Court in W.P.(MD).No.4445 of 2015 and the same was disposed of on 26.03.2015 by observing that the impugned order is treated as show-cause notice and the petitioner was granted 15 days time to give his explanation and on receipt of such explanation, the respondents were directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, on 31.03.2015, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent on 01.04.2015. The said representation was received by the respondent.

3. In the mean time, the petitioner has approached the respondents to rectify the error that occurred at the time of UDR with regard to the extent of the property. But the respondents without following the procedure, issued Form 6 notice, dated 23.06.2015, to evict the petitioner from the property. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Pending writ petition, this Court has granted an order of interim stay in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015. Thereafter, the fifth respondent C.Kalladiyan has taken out a petition in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2015 and got himself impleaded as fifth respondent in the writ petition and filed a vacate stay petition.

5. It has been averred in M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2015 that the writ petitioner, who is residing at Vanjinipatti Village by encroaching 20 feet cement road situated in S.No.697/30, constructed a compound wall and thereby, is making the said road as a narrow 10 feet road. The said 20 feet road is a cement road and it is coming from Vanjinipatti Village towards the Scheduled Caste colony. The said road is the only ingress and egress for the colony people. Therefore, the village people as well as the vehicle riders are finding it difficult to use the said road. Further a common drinking water pipe line is also situated in the said cement road. If any repair has to be done in the said pipeline, it would be very difficult for the colony people as well as for the Vanjinipatti Village people. Hence, a complaint was lodged before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kandavarayanpatti Police Station as against the petitioner on 04.01.2014 and the same was registered in C.S.R.No.3 of 2014. The first respondent/the writ petitioner herein was summoned by the Police and an enquiry was made and in the enquiry, the petitioner herein has produced the forged documents. Hence, a First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner and he was arrested and released on bail. The authorities concerned directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment. But, he refused to do so. Since the Police officials failed to take any action, finally, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court by the fifth respondent. In that writ petition, a direction was given to the third respondent to consider his representation within a period of 12 weeks. Thereafter only, the third respondent issued an enquiry notice dated 22.12.2014 to the fifth respondent as well as the writ petitioner to attend the enquiry on 24.12.2015. Both the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent appeared for enquiry. With the help of Police force, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar measured the disputed survey number and found that there was encroachment made by the petitioner. It was finally communicated to him. Thereafter also, the authorities have not taken any effective steps. The fifth respondent issued a contempt notice and filed a contempt petition No.328 of 2015. When the contempt petition was taken up for hearing, the third respondent has issued notice under Sections 5 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The said notice has been duly served on the writ petitioner on 11.03.2015. Thereafter, this Court closed the contempt petition. But suppressing all these facts, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.4445 of 2015. But in the said writ petition, on 26.03.2015, this Court has passed the following order: "Therefore, the impugned order is treated as show-cause notice and the petitioner is permitted 15 days time to give his explanation and on receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."

6. The writ petitioner has also sent a reply to the impugned notice. After conducting full fledged enquiry, a notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act has been issued by the third respondent on 26.03.2015, after obtaining legal opinion from the Special Government Pleader. But the petitioner refused to receive the notice. By suppressing all these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. It is the case of the respondents that unless the encroachment is removed, it is difficult for the colony people to use the road encroached by the petitioner.

8. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father has purchased the total extent of 11.47 cents in the year 1970 in the disputed survey number. But at the time of UDR correction, erroneous entries were made in the UDR register by wrongly mentioning the extent of land. In fact, the petitioner has already given a representation to the concerned authorities to rectify the mistakes which occurred at the time of UDR survey.

9. Further, the matter is civil in nature. In fact, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.34 of 2015. But erroneously the notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act has been issued by the third respondent on 26.03.2015. Therefore, the petitioner sought for quashing of the said order.

10. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent replied that the 20 feet road situated in S.No.69/30 is a common road. The petitioner by encroaching the said road, constructed a compound wall. In fact, in the writ petition filed by the respondent in W.P.No.3657 of 2014, a Division Bench has directed the respondent to consider the fifth respondent's representation by an order dated 09.07.2014. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur to give a colour as if the matter is civil in nature. In fact, the authorities concerned inspected the disputed Survey number and found that the petitioner encroached the Government road. The petitioner herein by filing writ petitions one after another is only trying to interfering with the official respondents from evicting him from the property encroached by him.

11. Further, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that by Go.Ms.No.540 Revenue [LD62].]. Department dated 04.12.2014, the Government has formed a committee to dispose of the disputes regarding the encroachment pursuant to the order passed by the first Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.3914 of 2015. The petitioner has also given a representation to the said committee. Therefore, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the said committee.

12. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the authority concerned has inspected the disputed property and found that this petitioner has encroached the Government road and is thereby preventing the colony people and village people from using the said road. Hence, after following the due process of law, the impugned notice has been issued and absolutely, there is no infirmity found in the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I find that the petitioner was issued with impugned notice only by properly following the procedure. Though very many contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with all the contentions, since this Court finds that the impugned notice has been issued only by following the procedure, I find that already this petitioner had made a representation before the Committee, formed relating to redressal of grievances regarding the encroachment. Since the petitioner's representation is pending before the said Committee, the petitioner has to work out his remedy only before the said committee.

14. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. To 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI. 2 THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE THASILDHAR , THIRUPATHUR TALUK OFFICE THIRUPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE REVENUE INSPECTOR NERKUPPAI VILLAGE , THIRUPATHUR TALUK SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4 THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER33 Aa,THAIKOOR GROUP, THIRUPATHUR TALUK, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. .