1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2036 and 2037 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 1.The State represented by The Kanyakumari District Collector, Nagarcoil. 2.The Venkanji Town Panchayat (now known as Kollamcode Town Panchayat) represented by its Executive Officer in Kollamcode Village, Vilavancode Taluk. .. Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants in both C.R.Ps. Vs. Narayana Pillai (died) N.Rajasekaran .. Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff in both C.R.Ps. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal orders dated 15.06.2011 passed in Execution Application Nos.107 and 72 of 2007 in Execution Petition No.74 of 2003 in Original Suit No.118 of 1975 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Chandrasekar in both C.R.Ps. Government Advocate COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Execution Application Nos.72 and 107 of 2007 in Execution Petition No.74 of 2003 in Original Suit No.118 of 1975 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. 2. The deceased respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.118 of 1975 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration, demarcation and also for recovery of possession, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.74 of 2003. During pendency of the same, Execution Application No.72 of 2007 has been filed so as to direct the respondents therein to remove construction put up in a portion of the suit building and Execution Application No.107 of 2007 has been filed so as to direct the respondents to give half of the amount spent for demarcation. The Court below has allowed both the Execution Applications by way of passing separate orders. Against the orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the respondents as civil revision petitioners. 3. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.118 of 1975 as well as the order passed in Execution Application Nos.72 and 107 of 2007, notice need not be sent to the respondent and these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the revision petitioners has attacked the orders passed in Execution Application Nos.72 and 107 of 2007 on the following grounds: (a) In a portion of the suit property, a school building has been constructed and the same is running and under the said circumstances, the relief sought for in Execution Application No.72 of 2007 cannot be granted, but the Court below has erroneously allowed the same. (b) In Execution Application No.107 of 2007, the Court below has erroneously directed the respondents to pay half of the amount spent for demarcation and there is no specific direction in the decree and under the said circumstances the order passed in Execution Application No.107 of 2007 is also erroneous. 5. As pointed out earlier, Original Suit No.118 of 1975 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration, demarcation and recovery of possession, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.74 of 2003. In the decree, the defendants have been specifically directed to demarcate the disputed property and poromboke land, which situate immediately on the northern side of the suit property. Therefore the entire direction has been given to the defendants with regard to the said relief. But the defendants have not evinced any interest so as to demarcate the suit property and poromboke land and the plaintiff has taken proper steps by way of spending the amount mentioned in Execution Application No.107 of 2007. Under the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly allowed Execution Application No.107 of 2007 by way of directing the respondents therein to pay half of the amount already spent by the petitioner and therefore the order passed in Execution Application No.107 of 2007 is not liable to be set aside. 6. In Execution Application No.72 of 2007, it has been specifically prayed to remove the construction put up in a portion of the suit property. Considering the nature of the relief of recovery of possession sought for in Original Suit No.118 of 1975 and also considering the main relief sought for therein, the relief sought for in Execution Application No.72 of 2007 can also be granted and the defendants have had no right to put up any construction in any portion of the suit property and admittedly in a portion of the suit property a school building is in existence and therefore the first respondent viz., the District Collector, Kanyakumari District is directed to remove the construction put up in a portion of the suit building and on that score also the order passed in Execution Application No.72 of 2007 by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed at the stage of admission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the orders passed in Execution Application Nos.72 and 107 of 2007 in Execution Petition No.74 of 2003 in Original Suit No.118 of 1975 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai are confirmed. However the first defendant viz., the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil is directed to remove the alleged construction put up in a portion of the suit property within two months. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. smn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.36899. COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.2036 and 2037 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 3P/4C RPB 08.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/