IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-10-2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.Nos.46899, 46900 and 46930 of 2002,1543, 16111, 16116 and 19016/2003 C.N.Babu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.46899 of 2002 Dhanapal Naidu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.46900 of 2002 Santhamoorthy ...Petitioner in W.P.No.46930 of 2002 M.Rajendan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.1543 of 2003 Dhanapal Naidu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.16111 of 2003 C.N.Babu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.16116 of 2003 M.Rajendan ...Petitioner in W.P.No.19016 of 2003 vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Collector of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Rrevenue Divisional officer, Tiruvannamalai. 3. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai. ... Respondents in all W.Ps. W.P No.46899 of 2002: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondens to handover possession of the property situate in Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai Town, Ward No.1 Block No.5 in Chinnakadai Street, T.S.No.117/1 Total 7282 Sq.ft. out of this 1440 sq.ft. bounded by West of the Street, South of Ramachandran's shop now lying as vacant site, North of Dhanapal's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ house East of Mannu Pillai's son Rajendran's Kalyana Mandapam in between East to West 60 feet, North to South 24 Feet Total 1440 sq.ft.in which there was a shed with zinc roofing which was used as a Mechanic shop by the petitioner under the name and style as "Siva Subramaniyar Motor Works" bearing Old Door No.45, New Door No.119, with electric service Connection No.32011 including its deposit. W.P.NO.46900 OF 2002: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondens to handover possession of the property situate in Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai Town, Ward No.1 Block No.5 in Chinnakadai Street, T.S.No.117/1 Total 7282 Sq.ft. Out of this 960 sq.ft. Bounded by West of the Street, East of Mannu Pillai's son Rajendran's kalyana mandapam, North of Mannupillai's son Gnanam's Complex, South of C.N.Babu's Mechanic Shed in between East to West 60 feet, North to South 16 Feet Total 960 sq.ft. Amidst this is situated a thatched house and a terraced house bearing Old Door No.44, New Door No.117 with Electric Service Connection bearing service Connection No.32066 including its deposit. W.P No.46930 of 2002: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondens to handover possession of the property situate in Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai Town, Ward No.1 Block No.5 in Chinnakadai Street, T.S.No.117/1 Total 7282 Sq.ft. out of this 470 sq.ft. bounded by West of the Street, South and East Manupillai's son Rajendran's Kalyana Mandapam , North of C.N.Babu's Mechanic Shop amids this was situated the said Sivakumar Flour Oil Mill bearing Old No.47, New Door No.123 with Electric Service connection 32033 including its deposit. W.P No.1543 of 2003: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondens to handover possession of the property situate in Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai Town, Ward No.1 Block No.5 in Chinnakadai Street, T.S.No.117/1 Total 7282 Sq.ft. out of this 1750 South of Kalyana Mandapam of the petitioner anmed as "Shri Mannupillai kalyana Mandapam", North of Dhanapal's house, West of Chinnakadai Street, East of manickam's house in between East West 35 feet and North to South 50 feet amidst this a vacant site being used as car parking stand by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P No.16111 and 16116 of 2003: These writ petition are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to his proceedings in B.M.P.No.4-7/1412 R.F.XIV C.1-2-2 26,206 MDU dated 26.8.002 and to quash the notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act made therein. Prayer in W.P.19016 of 2003 : This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 26.8.2002 made in BMP No.4-7/1412 and quash the notice under section 6 of the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act made therein respect of the land which was in the occupation of the Petitioner in T.S.No.117/1 in ward No.1, Block V, Chinnakadai Street, Tiruvannamalai Town. For Petitioner in all W.Ps : Mr.S.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel for M/s Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr. A.Arumugam Special Government Pleader C O M M O N O R D E R While, the prayer in the first four writ petitions is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to hand over possession of a property siuated in T.S.No.117/1, Chinnakadai Street, Block No.V, Ward No.I, Tiruvannamalai Town, the prayer in the remaining three writ petitions is to set aside a notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 (hereinater referred to as the Act). 2. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these writ petitions and Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners in all these writ petitions were in occupation of small extents of land measuring somewhere between 2 cents and 4 cents in T.S.No.117/1, Chinnakadai Street, Tiruvannamalai. According to the petitioners, there was a dispute https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ between them and a temple which claimed ownership to the entire extent of land. In the revenue records, the entire extent of land is classified as Anjeneya Swamy Temple Poromboke land.After the temple was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, an Association known as "Balijakula Naidu Sangam' sought a declaration before the Deputy Commissioner that the temple belonged to their community. The claim was rejected by the Department, but ultimately, the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai set aside the orders of the Commissioner and declared the temple to be a private temple belonging to the said community. The judgment and decree of the Sub Court were also confirmed by this Court in A.S.NO.767 of 1998. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of the said Sangam which claims ownership of the temple, the respondents forcibly evicted the petitioners. The petitioners had earlier institutued a suit against Balijakula Naidu Sangam in O.S.No.789 of 1989 and the same was decreed. It is the contention of the petitioners that having suffered a decree before the Civil Court, the aforesaid Sangam prevailed upon the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and that therefore the proceedings are vitiated. Moreover it is the further contention of the petitioners that without issuing a notice first under Section 7 of the Act, the notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued and that therefore the procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed. 5. The respondents have produced the files and I have perused the same. 6. As on date, it is admitted by the petitioners that they have been dispossessed. This is why the petitioners have sought, in the first four writ petitions, a prayer for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to hand over possession. It is admited by the writ petitioners that they have already been thrown out of possession even beore the filing of the writ petitions. 7. The petitioners, admittedly filed civil suits for declaration and injunction before approaching this Court. These suits were filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. The details of these suits are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No. Suit No. Date of disposal W.P.No.46899of 2002 &W.P.No.16116 of 2003 O.S.No.361 of 2002 Dismissed for default on 13.11.2007 W.P.No.46900 of 2002 &.W.P.No.16111 of 2003 O.S.No.357 of 2002 Dismissed for deault on 1.10.2007 W.P.No.46930 of 2002 O.S.No.352 of 2002 Dismissed for default on 12.3.2008 W.P.No.1543 of 2003 & W.P.No.19016 of 2003 O.S.NO.385 of 2002 Withdrawn with liberty on 7.4.2003 Admittedly, the petitioners sought interim orders of injunction before the Civil Court to protect their possession. Since interim orders were not granted, the petitioners were thrown out of possession. Thereafter, the petitiones have come up with the present writ petitions. On the date on which the writ petitions were filed and admitted, the Civil Suits were pending. Subsequently, they were either allowed to be dismissed for default or withdrawn without liberty. In such circumstances, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. . 8.The records produced by the respondents show that notices were served. Unfortunately, the notices served on the petitioners were in a printed format, which according to the learned Special Government Pleader was used in common for the proceedings both under Section 7 and under Section 6 fo the Act. In other words, according to the respondents, an opportunity was granted to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot complain of violation of atleast the principles of naural justice, though the violation of the procedures under Section 7 of the Act, to some extent may be made out. 9.In any event, since the petitioners have been dispossessed, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in B.M.HABIBULLAH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1994 Madras 222) in support of his contention that a person dispossessed without due process of law can be put back to possession. However, I do not think that such a relief can be granted to persons who approached the Civil Court even before they were dispossessed and who failed to obtain interim orders before the Civil Court and who came up with writ petitions even while keeping those suits pending. Moreover, such a relief was declined by the Apex Court in ANAMALAI CLUB Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ( (1997 )3 SCC 169 ) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Admittedly, the lands are clssified as temple poromboke lands. The petitioners have been dispossessed even in the year 2002. There is no dispute that the petitioners were only encroachers. Therefore, the question of putting them back to possession, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar VJY To 1. The Collector of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The revenue Divisional officer, Tiruvannamalai. 3. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai. + 5 cc to M/s. Sarvabhuaman, Associates, (SR 57046, 53465, 57047, 57049, 57048) + 1 cc to Government Pleader, High Court, Madras (SR 57423) Order in W.P.Nos.46899,46900 and 46930 of 2002, 1543, 16111,16116 and 19016 of 2003 KS (CO) RH (6.11.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/