LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-748

E RAGHUPATHY S/O (LATE) ELUMALAI AND ORS Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ADO, ANNA NAGAR DIVISION, TNHB; COMMISSIONER, AMBATTUR MUNICIPALITY

Decided On February 23, 2010
E Raghupathy S/O (Late) Elumalai And Ors Appellant
V/S
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board; Executive Engineer And Ado, Anna Nagar Division, Tnhb; Commissioner, Ambattur Municipality Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent not to enter into the petitioners' land, in survey No. 296/2, measuring 1 acre and 17 cents.

(2.) It has been stated that the petitioners' grand father, A. Rathinam, had purchased certain patta land in Padi, Mugappair village, during the year, 1942, through a registered sale deed, dated 15.6.1942, bearing document No. 669 of 1942, on the file of the Sub Registrar's office, Sembium. The petitioners' grand father and their father were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the land bearing survey No. 296/2, measuring an extent of 1 acre and 87 cents. The possession of the petitioners had been proved by the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the District Munsif Court, in O.S. No. 64 of 2007. While so, the third respondent is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land belonging to the petitioners, in survey No. 296/2, having an extent of 1 acre and 17 cents. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the third respondent is not empowered to take possession of the land, in survey No. 296/2, having an extent of 1 acre and 17 cents, when the suit, in O.S. No. 481 of 2009, is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. In fact, the second respondent had, illegally, gifted a portion of the land to the third respondent, when the writ petition has been pending before this Court, in W.P. No. 32034 of 2007. Since, the petitioners had been in occupation of the land, in question for a number of years and as they have been cultivating the said land, it is not open to the third respondent to disturb the peaceful possession and occupation of the said land, by the petitioners.