M PAUL AMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein claims herself to be the assignee of the property situated in Survey No.167 at Kilambakkam village, Urapakkam Panchayat, measuring an extent of 3 cents by the proceedings of the Deputy Tahsildar, Chenglept on 5.3.1993. Consequent to the assignment of the land, the petitioner had constructed a thatched house and after removal of thatched house, a compound wall was constructed surrounding his land. The contention of the petitioner is that she had been paying necessary statutory dues on the said property and she had been in possession of the property since the date of transfer. The petitioner contends that the first respondent is making a railway fly over construction work in Kilambakkam village. The petitioner's land is situated near the railway construction work. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the construction work is going on. This is the position as regards the other residents living nearby, with the result the petitioner filed W.P.No.1168 of 2012 seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, High Ways Department, the District Collector, Kancheepuram District and the Special Tahsildar, High Ways Rural Development Corporation, from evicting or dispossessing the petitioner or demolishing the building except through due process of law under the provisions of Tamil Nadu High Ways Act 34 of 2002. By Order dated 7.3.2012, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to pass final orders after considering the objections made by the petitioner and till final orders are passed the respondents were directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. It seems that subsequent thereto a series of writ petitions were filed by similarly placed persons as against the orders of eviction made by the 2nd respondent. In W.P.Nos.33650, 33719, 33733, 33760 and 33791 of 2012, by Order dated 22.1.2013, a Division Bench of this Court extended the stay granted on 17.12.2012. Those writ petitions are also subject matter of hearing along with this writ petition before us.

(2.) It is seen from the averments in the writ petition that the 4th respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land encroachment Act, 1905 on 5.9.2012 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the premises. The petitioner replied on 22.9.2012 placing reliance on the assignment made on 5.3.1993 by the Deputy Tahsildar, Chenglepet through the assignment order. The petitioner denied the allegation of encroachment contained in the notice and requested the authorities to verify the documents such as house property tax receipt, family card, E.B card and pass orders thereon. Thereafter, the second respondent Tahsildar, Chengalpatu issued the order dated 3.12.2012, wherein the second respondent considered the representation made by the petitioner and held that the claim of the petitioner that he had been in possession could not be accepted and pursuant to the Order of the High Court for the construction of Over bridge proceedings were taken to remove the encroachment. Thus, the representation of the petitioner stood rejected. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been in possession of the property after valid assignment made in his favour by the Government and the respondents have now taken a stand that the petitioner is an encroacher and the same is unsustainable in law.