1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P.(MD).No.5524 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 The Madurai Union Club, Rep by its Secretary, S.Prabhu, No.9, Thamukkam Park Road, Madurai 20. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Gokhale Road, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the land situate at S.F.No.512 to an extent of 63 cents, Thamukkam Road, Madurai, without following due process of law or taking possession of the land in the guise of removal of encroachment. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J] This Writ Petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the land situate at S.F.No.512 to an extent of 63 cents, Thamukkam Road, Madurai, without following due process of law or taking possession of the land under the guise of removal of encroachment. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a club registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and started in the year 1883 and license was also issued in favour of the petitioner club for the purpose of setting up a Tennis Court and a garden. Initially, a sum of Re.1/- per year was fixed towards rent and the rent had also been periodically revised and the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 club had also raised objections for the same. Though initially, the petitioner club was in possession and enjoyment of 98 cents, subsequently, a portion of the land to an extent of 35 cents was taken over by the Government for the Government purpose and the petitioner club had also handed over the same without any objection. 3. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner club is that when the petitioner club was in possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the said land was surveyed by the second respondent officials viz, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, on 02.05.2011 and the petitioner club was also informed that the respondents are going to start construction work in the said land. On coming to know the same, the petitioner club has also made representations to the respondents to stop their attempt to put up construction in the land in question. But, no reply was given. Consequently, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that the petitioner club is an encroacher of the said land, the respondents have to issue notice required under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and Section 6 of the Act, and therefore, without following due process of law, the respondents cannot evict the petitioner club from the land in question. 5. On notice, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, the specific stand of the first respondent is that the land was originally given on rental basis. However, after issuing proceedings under the relevant Act, the said land was handed over by the Secretary of the petitioner club to the Revenue Department on 07.09.2006. Subsequently, by the orders of the District Collector, Madurai, dated 01.08.2009, the said land was handed over to the Tamil Development Department on 14.08.2009 and from the said date onwards, the said land is in possession and enjoyment of the Tamil Development Department. 6. The first respondent in his counter affidavit has specifically denied that the petitioner club is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. As per the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, the Government has sanctioned a sum of Rs.50 lakhs for the purpose of construction of Nan-madakoodal Arrangam and for the said purpose, the land was handed over to the Public Works Department Authorities and the work has also been commenced. Under such circumstances, the stand of the petitioner is totally unsustainable. Apart from this, as per Paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, more than crores of rupees is due from the petitioner club, and therefore, the petitioner club is not entitled for the relief sought for. 7. We have considered the above submissions made by the respective learned counsel. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. As per the prayer, the claim of the petitioner club is that he should not be disturbed from the land in question. The wordings used in the prayer are, "forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the land situate at S.F.No.512 to an extent of 63 cents." However, as per the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit at Paragraph No.4 and also as per the documents filed by the respondents, the land in question had already been handed over to the official respondents by the Secretary of the petitioner's club, which is evident from the letter of the Tahsildar, Madurai South, dated 09.08.2008. Apart from this, as per the Taken Over Certificate enclosed at Page No.1 of the typed set of papers filed by the respondents, the land was not required by the petitioner club and he had also accepted the same and there is no dispute that the petitioner club has handed over the said land to the official respondents. Under such circumstances, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner club that before disturbing the petitioner club, the official respondents have to issue notice required under Section 7 and also Section 6 of the Act, cannot be accepted. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner club requests this Court that the petitioner club had put up a compound wall and he should be allowed to remove the same, we are not inclined to accept the said request, for the reason that when the possession and enjoyment of the land has been handed over as early as 07.09.2006, granting time to the petitioner club to remove the compound wall will create confusion and unnecessary problems. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Gokhale Road, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.B.Saravanan Advocate, Sr.No.18273 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 18293 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.5524 of 2011 NB/SMA/28.6.2011/6C/3P 13.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/