A PARVATHY Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for a direction forbearing the respondents from forcibly evicting the petitioners from their lawful possession and enjoyment of the house and 'punjai DHARISU' property in Survey No. 33/2 of Adaiyalampattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvellore District, bounded on North by Panchayat Union Road, South by Dhandapani Chamber Vacant land, East by 220 feet National Highway Road and West by Rajarajeswari College Compound.

(2.) IN the affidavit, the second petitioner has stated that all the petitioners are permanently residing in 27-1/2 cents in S. No. 33/2 of Adaiyalampattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvellore District, measuring a total extent of 1. 55 acres. In the revenue records, the said survey number is shown as "punjai dharisu". Therefore, except the Government of Tamil Nadu, the respondents 3 and 4 or any other person has no right over the said lands. The petitioners are being issued with 'b' memos. They are also having ration cards for their respective houses and applied for electricity connection to their houses. The petitioners are doing odd jobs and eking out their livelihood. The petitioners have been making representations seeking issuance of patta in respect of their respective lands and finally, on 14. 2. 2005, they have made representation to the respondents, which is still pending. They have no other properties of their own. The respondents 3 and 4 who are influential persons, in the month of May 2005, demanded the petitioners to sell their properties to them, to which the petitioners did not oblige. The petitioners came to know that those respondents are attempting to get planning permission from C. M. D. A. , Chennai and are trying to sell away the plots by registering the documents before the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam. The petitioners, on 8. 7. 2005, made objection to the Member-Secretary, C. M. D. A. and the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam. The Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, returned the objection saying that unless there is a Court order, he cannot act on their objection. On 11. 7. 2005, officials of the second respondent-Tahsildar came to the spot along with the respondents 3 and 4 and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises. Even though the petitioners showed all the documents, they did not accept their contentions. According to the petitioners, without eviction notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioners cannot be evicted. Hence, the writ petition jointly by the petitioners.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.