R SHANMUGAM Vs. COMMISSIONER VILLIYANUR COMMUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Harin, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to forbear the respondent, its men, agents, subordinates, servants, from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioner in Plot Nos.1 and 2, situate in R.S.No.171/6, Patta No.373, Villiyanur, Pondicherry, except otherwise in accordance with law.

(3.) TO the above counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed reply affidavit/rejoinder to the following effect: The allegation that the petitioner's property adjoins on the north and south by respondent commune panchayat, respectively, is false. The petitioner's property is bounded by north by the NH45, the west and south by new street, left by the petitioner's vendor Venkatasamy for the convenient of the other plot holders. As per the petitioner's knowledge, till date, the petitioner's vendor has not handed over the private street to the respondent. The residents of the plot owners alone have right to utilise the aforesaid private lane. 5.1. It is not correct that the property was demarcated in the presence of the petitioner. The respondent has the obligation and duty to prove the same with adequate documents. The petitioner has not received summons from the respondent on the Revenue Department before the alleged survey. The property had not been surveyed in the presence of the petitioner at any point of time. 5.2. It is absolutely false and ridiculous to state that the petitioner has encroached the public road. The entire lay out situated in R.S.No.171/6 at Villianur originally belonged to one Venkatasamy. He divided the properties into several plots and the plot bearing Nos.1 and 2 had been sold to the petitioner on 18.5.1992. The total extent purchased by the petitioner is 2500 Sq.Ft. The western and southern boundaries of the petitioner's property are shown as new way and northern side is bounded by NH 45. From the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of the property. 5.3. The survey stones have been illegally removed by the respondent and the encroachers. They had made constructions in the petitioner's property to the extent of 315 Sq.Ft. When the new way belongs to the lay out holders, the allegation of the respondent is entirely false. The respondent is attempting to construct a retaining wall in the petitioner's property, which is illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner is willing to survey by any superior or competent authority of the Revenue Department after issuing prior notice. The owner of the property in S.No.167 had encroached upon the road, had not been denied or controverted by the respondent in their counter affidavit. It is an admission by non-traverse. The petitioner is not aware why the respondent has been supporting the encroachers as against the patta holders.