S K KANNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE Petitioner claims right over the property to an extent of 2.56 acres of punja land in T.S. No. 513/1 and 0.25 cents in T.S.No. 513/2 in Block No.16, Ward No.4, Pappanam Chetty Village, Nagapattinam. According to the petitioner, the said property is his ancestral property, which was originally purchased by Sambosankaran Chettiar by a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1921 from Singaravel Chettiar and others. From the date of such purchase, Sambosankaran Chettiar was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. After his death, Petitioner's father Kanagasabai inherited the property. On 12.12.1927, there was a family partition in the family in which the said property was allotted to the share of the petitioner's father. Now, the petitioner, his brother Arunachalam, Srinivasan and his cousin brothers Packirisamy and Shankar Raj are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, during September 2009, the subordinate of the second respondent attempted to dispossess the petitioner on the guise of putting up a building in the said land. Under those circumstance, the petitioner has issued a notice dated 03.10.2009 to the respondents as contemplated under Section 80 of CPC and inspite of the said notice, the respondents attempted to interfere with their possession, therefore, O.S.No. 271 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam for a bare injunction. In that suit, the respondents have also filed their written statement. THE civil Court has not granted any interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and it was dismissed. In the meantime, for the notice issued by the petitioner under Section 80 CPC, the respondents have issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear for an enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner also appeared before the first respondent. THEreafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.01.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to assert his right over the said property. Challenging the said order dated 02.01.2010 of the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) BEFORE passing the impugned order, the first respondent afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case. In the impugned order, it is categorically stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the subject matter of the land and that it is a government poromboke land, therefore, they have got every right to put up a construction. This contention of the respondents is not specifically disputed by the petitioner by producing any documents to the contrary. Merely because a civil suit filed by the petitioner, that too for a bare injunction and the said suit is pending, that does not prohibit the respondents from proceeding further in the matter. The action initiated by the respondents is not suomotu but it was only on the basis of a notice sent by the petitioner through his advocate under Section 80 CPC. In any event, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent warranting interference. There are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.