N M GANESAN Vs. COMMISSIONER SATHYAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. The Plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit in O.S. No. 134 of 2008 before the trial court praying for a bare injunction to restrain the respondent municipality and their men from evicting or removing the constructions and tiled shed or from interfering or obstructing or in any manner disturbing with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Both the courts below concurrently rejected the plea of the plaintiff/appellant, which resulted in the present second appeal.

(2.) IN the plaint, it was contended by the plaintiff/appellant that his father was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 47 years and after his demise he continued the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Even during the life time of Plaintiff's father, "B" memo was issued in the name of his father and he was paying the taxes and charges to the authorities concerned. Earlier, a notice was issued to the appellant's father under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act to evict him, therefore, a suit in O.S. No. 94 of 1997 was filed by the appellant's father in which interim injunction was granted. During the pendency of the suit, as the defendant/ respondent or his men did not cause any disturbance, appellant's father filed I.A. No. 125 of 2006 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a suit, if necessary. Accordingly, I.A. No. 125 of 2006 was allowed on 22.03.2006 permitting the appellant's father to withdraw the suit. Thereafter, the appellant's father died and the appellant has submitted an application dated 08.04.2008 to transfer the property tax in respect of the suit property in his name. During the pendency of such application, the respondent has issued a notice dated 16.04.2008 calling upon the plaintiff/appellant to vacate the suit property on the ground that he is an unauthorised occupier of the suit property. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent corporation has no right to evict him and if at all, it is the Government, which has got such right to remove him from the land in question by following the due process of law. Therefore, according to the appellant, the notice issued by the respondent demanding the appellant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit property is without authority of law and invalid. In those circumstances, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 134 of 2008.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement contending that the suit property is classified as "Nilaviyal Chandu" in the revenue records and the Government is the paramount title holder of such land. The suit property is under the administrative control and maintenance of the respondent municipality and the respondent has every right to demand for eviction of the plaintiff/appellant from such property so as to restore the property for public use as "Nilaviyal Chandu". The issuance of "B" Memo in favour of the father of the plaintiff/appellant will not confer any title to him over the suit property. As the Plaintiff/appellant is an unauthorised occupier of the property, the defendant/respondent has every right to demand the plaintiff/appellant to handover the vacant possession of the suit property. Therefore, following the due process of law, a notice dated 16.04.2008 was issued to the appellant calling upon him to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent municipality, which cannot be termed as perverse or arbitrary. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit.