K.AYYAMMAL Vs. REGISTRAR, STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be an assignee of land in Survey No. 994/1A, T.S.No.116, Melamadurai Village, Arapalayam Main Road, Madurai West Taluk admeasuring to an extent of one cent and the same was given to her through the Scheme of giving free house site pattas as she happened to be a landless poor and the petitioner claims to be in occupation for several decades so also 42 persons. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that on 19.12.2016, at about 5.00 a.m., the second respondent accompanied with certain police officials, started demolishing the superstructures, and the same is in violation of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the United Nation Covenants of Human Rights.

(2.) The petitioner subsequently filed W.P.(MD).No.3461 of 2017 so also along with some other persons similarly placed, who had also filed W.P.(MD).Nos.781 and 333 of 2017, praying for the writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, dated 03.08.2015 and the consequential order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and directing them to restore the possession of the petitioner bearing Plot No.7 situated at Old Survey No.994/1A, Ward No.5, Block No.33, T.S.No.116, Arapalayam Main Road, Melamadurai, Madurai. The learned single Judge had passed a common order dated 01.04.2019, by directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to carry out the work of survey, measurement and demarcation of the assigned sites within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in respect of the assignee of the land in Plot No.37, after taking note of the fact that she is no more, directed the concerned jurisdictional Tahsildar to assign the said land in favour of any other eligible person and allowed the writ petitions accordingly.

(3.) Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that though the second respondent had committed illegal act of barging, trespassing into the land and demolishing the superstructure on 19.12.2016, the fact remains that the petitioner is an illiterate person, having poor economic background and hailing from lowest strata of the Society, and though the complaint came to be lodged belatedly on 06.06.2019, the complaint given before the first respondent concerned cannot be said to be barred by limitation, on the ground that it is a continuous cause of action, and the first respondent without taking note of the factual aspect and legal position, has erroneously rejected the plaint, on the ground of limitation and prays for interference.