1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD).No.8851 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 M.Veluchamy : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Tahsildar, Tiruvadani Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.Rasu : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment put up by the third respondent at Natham Survey No.162/55, Thelur Village and Panchayat, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District based upon the representation dated 28.03.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R ********** [Order of the Court was made BY M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Writ Petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment put up by the third respondent at Natham Survey No.162/55, Thelur Village and Panchayat, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has put up some construction unauthorizedly in a Government land. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation on 28.03.2011 to the first respondent. In the said representation, the petitioner has stated that the land encroached by the third respondent is very much required for the general public. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent has also filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.54 of 2010, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai and obtained a decree for injunction. In spite of representation made by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the first respondent to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, according to the petitioner, unless and until respondents 1 and 2 take effective steps to set aside the exparte decree, the third respondent cannot be evicted. 4. In our considered view, the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and facts. Admittedly, as seen from the representation of the petitioner dated 28.03.2011, the third respondent had filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.54 of 2010, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai and obtained a decree for injunction. As long as the said decree is not set aside, respondents 1 and 2 cannot take any action. However, this Court finds some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since this Writ Petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation and it has been alleged that respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action to set aside the exparte decree passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application before the jurisdictional Civil Court and take steps to set aside the exparte decree obtained by the third respondent. As and when such an application is filed by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Civil Court is directed to take up the same and decide the issue on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Tahsildar, Tiruvadani Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. NB rl/3c – 17.8.2011 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.8851 of 2011 08.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/