IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 29-08-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition Nos.5252 of 2001 and W.P.No.38345 of 2003 W.P.No.5252 of 2001: 1.R.Muthukrishnan 2.M.Abulhasan 3.A.Sadiqbatcha 4.M.Mohamadali 5.A.Sadiqbatcha 6.A.Dadiqbatcha 7.P.Chinnukothanar 8.L.Balasubramanian 9.Ganapathy 10.G.senthil Murugan 11.R.M.Sethu 12.T.Rengaraj 13.P.Andiambalam 14.N.Manickam 15.C.Palaniappan 16.Santhanakrishnan 17.C.Pachaiammal 18.T.Vellaiyan 19.C.Velankanni 20.P.Sethu 21.S.Mahalingam 22.S.Periasamy 23.R.Thirugnanam 24.M.Palaniandi Goundar 25.I.Abuthahir .. Petitioners. Versus 1.Ponnampatti Town Panchayat, Thuvarankurichi, rep. by its Executive Officer, Thuvarankurichi, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. 2.The District Collector, Trichirapalli District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk, Trichirapalli District. 4.The Special Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 5.The State rep., by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manaparai. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records bearing Rc.No.B1/5559/99, dated 23.2.2001, of the second respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently direct the fifth respondent or any other authority as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court to take a final decision in the matter of grant of patta on the basis of the resolution of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sureshkumar For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Jayakumar (R1) Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader (R2 to R6) W.P.No.38345 of 2003: 1.Selvi 2.R.Muthukrishnan 3.Abal Hasan .. Petitioners. Versus 1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The Tahsildar, Manaparai. 3.The Executive Officer, Ponnambatti Panchayat, Thuvarankurichi, Manaparai, Trichy District. .. Respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, servants or agents from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respective houses and shops of the petitioners herein in S.No.266, Thuvarankurichi, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. For Petitioners : M/s. AL. Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Jayakumar (R3) Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader (R1 & R2) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.5252 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records bearing Rc.No.B1/5559/99, dated 23.2.2001, issued by the second respondent, quash the same and to direct the fifth respondent or any other authority to take a final decision in the matter for the granting of patta on the basis of the resolution of the first respondent, dated 26.2.2001. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioners and their predecessors in title are in continuous occupation and possession of the various pieces of lands comprised in S.P.No.266 in Pikulam and S.P.No.375 in Chettikulam Thideer Nagar, Thuvarankurichi Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichirapalli District. All the petitioners have been in continuous occupation of their respective lands, for a period of nearly 30 to 40 years. The first respondent had issued necessary planning permits by enabling the petitioners to put up constructions for residential purposes and for the construction of small shops. The first respondent had also issued a `No Objection Certificate' for providing electricity service connection. Further, the buildings in the lands in question had been assessed for property tax. The petitioners had been given ration cards by the civil supplies and Consumer Protection Department, since all the buildings had been provided with separate door numbers and since they have been assessed for the payment of tax. The authorities concerned had laid cement roads and had provided street lights, and water and drainage connections. 4. It has also been submitted that the Government had passed an order, in G.O.Ms.No.168 Revenue (Ni.Mu.112) Department, dated 27.3.2000, proposing to issue patta in respect of the occupants of lands, who have been in continuous occupation and possession of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lands belonging to the Municipalities, Village Panchayats and Townships, wherever the occupation, is found to be unobjectionable. Based on the said Government Order, the third respondent had called for the necessary details from the first respondent, through his letter, dated 17.5.2000. Based on the said letter, the necessary details had been collected and the matter had been placed before the Town Panchayat. After necessary discussions, a resolution had been passed in Resolution No.249, dated 22.6.2000, for giving patta to 150 persons including the petitioners. The first respondent has forwarded the resolution to the second and third respondents and all the other concerned authorities. Based on the said resolution, the necessary formalities had been completed for the issuance of pattas to the occupants of the lands in question, including the petitioners. While so, the second respondent had initiated steps for the removal of certain encroachments adjoining the highways on NH-45B, during the last week of December, 2000. On receipt of the notices, the occupants have voluntarily removed the encroachments. However, the second respondent had issued directions to the third respondent to remove the petitioners from the lands occupied by them, without examining the matter in detail. The first respondent had issued notices directing the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession of the lands under their occupation. In such circumstances, the petitioners have come before this Court by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition in W.P.No.38345 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents their men, servants and agents, from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respective houses and shops belonging to the petitioners in S.No.266, Thuvarankurichi Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. 6. The petitioners had stated that they are residing in the lands belonging to Kuranatha Swamy Angala Parameswari Temple in S.No.266. They have been threatened by the respondents that they would be evicted without any notice. Therefore, they have come before this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioners have stated that the lands in S.No.266 of Ponnambatti Village, belongs to the temple and the said lands are meant for irrigating the pond situated in an extent of 10 acres and 8 cents. The petitioners are poor persons, who are residing in the banks near the pond from the year 1977. Initially, the petitioners were residing by putting up small huts. Thereafter, since the pond had no water and since no irrigation was taking place, the persons who were in occupation of the lands were permitted by the temple authorities to reside therein, permanently, as it was also useful for the temple by way of getting some income. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The petitioners have sent various representations to the authorities of the temples, as well as the officers of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, stating that the petitioners are willing to pay the ground rent to the temple. While so, the petitioners are regularly paying the house tax and the other incidental charges and they have applied to the third respondent for permission to put up buildings on the lands under their occupation. Based on the permission granted by the third respondent, the petitioners have put up constructions in the lands in question for residential purposes and for running shops. However, the respondents are threatening to remove the petitioners from the lands in question stating that, if they do not voluntarily vacate the premises, they will be removed by using force. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in W.P.No.5252 of 2001 and the third respondent in W.P.No.38345 of 2003, it has been stated that there is no truth in the claims of the petitioners that they are in continuous occupation and possession of the encroached lands for a long time. The granting of electricity connections, ration cards and payment of property tax do not confer any title on the petitioners. It is false to state that the petitioners and others, who were in occupation of the lands in question, had constructed residential buildings on the encroached lands. The petitioners and some others had encroached on the lands in S.F.Nos.266 and 275 of Thuvarankurichi Village, for commercial purposes. Even though the Ponnambatti Panchayat had resolved to give patta for the residential buildings, by a resolution No.249, dated 26.6.2000, the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, did not accept the said resolution. The writ petitioners having approached this Court by filing an earlier writ petition, in W.P.No.236 of 2001, they cannot be permitted to pray for the same reliefs once again by the present writ petition. The filing of the present writ petition by the writ petitioners is only to thwart the attempts of the respondents from evicting the encroachers, who are in occupation of poramboke lands. The Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue, (Ni.Mu.112) Department, dated 27.3.2000, relied upon by the petitioners, is applicable only to persons who are in occupation of certain lands for residential purposes and if the lands in such occupation is under the category of non-objectionable lands. In the present case, since the petitioners had encroached on highly objectionable lands like kulam poramboke, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner had to be rejected. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 6 in W.P.No.5252 of 2001, the claims made by the petitioners have been denied. It has been stated that the lands comprised in S.F.No.266, measuring an extent of 4.08.0 hectares, S.F.No.375, measuring an extent 2.65.0 hectares, S.F.No.379, measuring an extent 1.88.0 hectares, situated in Thuvarankurichi Village, Manapparai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Taluk, is classified as Kulam poramboke in the settlement `A' register. It has been further stated that the writ petitioners and some others have encroached upon a portion of the government lands. The Government had not issued any `B' memo to the writ petitioners. Even if planning permits had been issued by the first respondent and the buildings are assessed for property tax, that it cannot give any right to the petitioners as they are in occupation of Kulam poramboke, which is coming under the banned category of lands. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, is the competent authority to accept or to reject the resolutions of the Town Panchayat, Ponnampatti. As the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, has rejected the resolution passed by the Ponnampatti Town Panchayat, by his proceedings Rc.B1/55919/99, dated 23.2.2001, on the ground that the request for issue of patta in respect of the encroachment by way of commercial activities in the Kulam poramboke are highly objectionable and therefore, the request cannot be complied with. 11. It has been further stated that the second respondent District Collector was the competent authority for finalising the issue of regularisation of encroachment as per G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue (Ni.Mu.112) Department, dated 27.3.2000. In the said Government order, it has been stated that only residential huts and houses were to be regularised if they were unobjectionable. In the present case, the encroachments by the petitioners are in the highly objectionable Kulam poramboke and the constructions had been put up by the petitioners for commercial activities. Therefore, the second respondent had rejected the resolution passed by the first respondent Panchayat. 12. It has been further stated that the Tahsildar, Manapparai and the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli, had inspected the Kulam poramboke lands and they had reported that the occupation by the petitioners in the lands in question is by way of illegal encroachments for carrying out commercial activities and that the petitioners are not eligible for assignment, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue (Ni.Mu.112) Department, dated 27.3.2000. Therefore, the order of the second respondent for rejecting the resolution of the first respondent, dated 26.6.2000, is correct. 13. It has also been stated that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.41, Revenue Department, dated 20.01.87, has ordered that the encroachments in highly objectionable poramboke lands should not be allowed and the encroachers ought to be evicted in an impartial manner. The Tahsildar and the District Revenue Officer concerned are the competent officers to decide the eligibility of the writ petitioners to issue patta for the lands under their occupation. Therefore, the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, had taken a decision based on the reports submitted by them with regard to the assignments of the lands in question. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. It has also been stated that the writ petitioners had filed an earlier writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.236 of 2001, praying for the same relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition, and by an order, dated 5.1.2001, the said writ petition had been disposed of, denying the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. 15. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had brought to the notice of this Court an order, dated 14.7.2005, made in W.P.No.44 of 2003. From the said order it is noted that a similar writ petition, with regard to the lands in question, had been filed by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, and this Court by its order, dated 14.7.2005, had rejected their claims, stating that indiscriminate encroachments in objectionable areas like water courses, lake-porambokes, Tank porambokes and such other areas, cannot be permitted as it would lead to depletion of underground water and as the Government of Tamilnadu has ample powers it is open to them to remove the encroachments on such objectionable categories of lands, for the cause of the common good. The mere issuance of ration cards or the granting of electricity service connections or the collection of property tax would not confer any right or title to the petitioners for the lands or the premises under their occupation. In W.P.No.21786 of 2005, a Division Bench of this Court, had directed all the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action to evict the encroachers in the water bodies and water sources which are objectionable in nature. In fact the respondents are duty bound to give effect to the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 16. Considering the averments made on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents and in view of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners, including W.P.No.44 of 2003, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners. In fact the petitioners are not eligible to file repeated writ petitions before this Court praying for the same or similar reliefs. Such a practice had been deprecated by the various Courts of law, including the Apex Court. Therefore, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. 17. Even on merits, the petitioners have no cause or reason to pray for the granting of pattas or for the assignment of the lands under their occupation. Once it is found by the authorities concerned that the petitioners have encroached on the Kulam poramboke lands, which are basically meant for the storage of water, they have a bounden duty to evict the encroachers, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21786 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2005. Further, the granting of electricity service connections, the issuance of family cards and the collection of property taxes, by the first respondent Panchayat, cannot give any right to the petitioners, as claimed by them. 18. It is also clear from the records available before this Court that the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, had rejected the resolution of Ponnambatti Town Panchayat, by his proceedings, dated 23.2.2001, since he had found that the encroachments by the petitioners are in highly objectionable Kulam poramboke lands, which are having ayacut lands and the assignment of the said lands to any person has been banned, as per G.O.Ms.No.41, Revenue Department, 20.1.87. It has also been found that G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue (Ni.Mu.112) Department, dated 27.3.2000, is not applicable to the petitioners, as it relates only to persons who were in occupation of certain types of lands for residential purposes. In such circumstances, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are dismissed. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The District Collector, Trichirapalli District. 2. The Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk, Trichirapalli District. 3. The Special Commissioner, Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 4. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manaparai. + 1 c.c. to Mr. M.Suresh Kumar, Advocate. S.R.No.49148. + 1 c.c. to Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate. S.R.No.49132. + 2 c.cs. to Mr. P.S. Jayakumar, Advocate. SR.Nos.49041 & 49038. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.NO.49309. Writ Petition Nos.5252 of 2001 and W.P.No.38345 of 2003 KV (CO) GSK 18.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/