CHINNAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.B -5 R.P.3/2006 (22019)/2003, dated 23.05.2008, quash the same and further forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.F. No. 238/2, an extent of 40 cents at Melakaraikadu Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District, till the disposal of O.S. No. 136 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 to 5 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 255 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Musiri, for injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in S. Nos. 239/2, 236/1 and 238/4 in Melakaraikadu Village. The properties belong to Ayyampalayam Anna Chatram Trust at Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District and the petitioners are lessees. Respondents 3 and 4 gave a petition to the second respondent to remove the encroachment from S. No. 238/2, Melakaraikkadu Village, which is 'Vari' viz., water body poramboke. According to the respondents 3 and 4, the land is a Government poramboke. The first petitioner's husband and the first petitioner filed objections stating that a petition has been filed to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 255 of 2000 to include S. No. 238/2, to an extent of 40 cents also. Even though the said petition was dismissed, that has not attained finality. The second respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing, passed orders in favour of the respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) THE first respondent without appreciating the petitioner's case, confirmed the order of the second respondent on the ground that S. No. 238/2, is a water body poramboke. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has passed the impugned order without application of mind. When Civil Suits are pending, the second respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order.