N.URBAN JEEVARAJ Vs. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to set aside the Order/Notice dated 27.08.2019 in Na.Ka.No. 883/A/2012 issued by the second respondent, namely, The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013 and to direct the respondents not to interfere with the property of the petitioners, namely, land measuring one ground in R.S.No. 3053/2 along with building bearing Door No. 248, Surya Narayana Chetty Street, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013 which is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners.

(2.) The first to sixth petitioners are brothers and sisters. The seventh petitioner is the widow of another brother and the eighth petitioner is the daughter of the said brother. Originally, the mother of the first to sixth petitioners and of the husband of the seventh petitioner, by name, Jayapushpammal, who was carrying on firewood depot business since in the year 1950, was allotted one ground of land by the Secretary to Government, Food and Agriculture Department, Chennai, by Memorandum No. 101263.E.II/58/4 dated 13.11.1958. This land was allotted from the lands acquired for rehabilitation of fishermen in Tondiarpet. It was specifically stated that she may continue purely as a matter of grace till the sites are taken up for development. Subsequently, the land was handed over to the Corporation of Madras. Finally, by proceedings No. 6220-1/60-6 dated 21.01.1961, the Government allotted one ground in R.S.No. 3053/2 to N.Jayapushpammal. The purpose was for running firewood depot. The second respondent had also addressed a letter the Tahsildar, North Madras, by letter dated 06.10.1961 to demarcate one ground in R.S.No. 3053/2 for handing over the property.

(3.) It is claimed by the petitioners that they constructed pucca superstructure after obtaining planning permission on 05.12.1962 from the Corporation of Chennai. They are also paying taxes including taxes for running firewood depot. It is also stated that the name of N.Jayapushpammal was entered in the Corporation Register. The second respondent thereafter commenced to issue notices to N.Jayapushpammal. She filed W.P.No. 35366 of 2006 seeking protection of possession. By Order dated 14.12.2011, this Court had stated that the respondent should not evict her without issuing notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing. The order was confirmed in W.A.No. 1485 of 2013, by order dated 30.06.2017. It was further stated in the affidavit that the second respondent had issued a notice dated 04.08.2017 for which the counsel of N.Jayapushpammal gave a reply on 18.08.2017. A further notice had issued on 27.05.2019 whereby the respondents directed N.Jayapushpammal to vacate the premises within two weeks. The writ petitioners filed W.P.No. 19378 of 2019. It was stated that the Court directed the second respondent to conduct enquiry before passing any orders. A further order was passed by the second respondent on 30.07.2019 directing her to vacate the encroached lands of the Fisheries Department in S.No. 3053/11.