MEMBER CONCERN DEPARTMENT OF POST Vs. ANNAPOORNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 17. 02. 2003 passed by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, granting Interim Injunction in I. A. No. 2867 of 2003 in O. S. No. 724 of 2003. The union of India Postal Department represented by its Chief Post Master General is the revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE multifarious litigations relate to T. S. No. 8019/2 situate at T. Nagar, Chennai, measuring about 5 Grounds 446 Sq. Ft, which stood in the name of Ramasamy Chettiyar. THE property was acquired by the Postal department for the construction of Post Office and for other purposes of Postal department like the construction of the Administrative Block and other purposes. Aggrieved over the acquisition of the land, Wife and Family Members of the Land owner have entangled the Postal Department in number of litigations. THE numerous litigations appear to have been filed for the collateral purpose of either insisting the Postal Department to reconvey the land or for getting more rent or for the purpose of keeping the litigations alive. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court, relitigating the matter. THE narration of facts and reference to the litigations would bring home the improper use of machinery of the Court. THE tendency of the parties seem to be that filing of Writ Petitions by seethalakshmi Achi, Wife of Ramasamy Chettiyar; filing of Civil Suits by other members of the Family are as if the acquisition proceedings are not known to them. THE tendency appears to be that in cases of number of writ petitions, the postal Department has been impleaded as party. But, the Civil Suits are filed (without impleading the Postal Department) under the pretext as if they are simple suits for partition involved amongst the family members.

(3.) THE Postal Department after facing number of Writ petitions, with reference to the Budget allotment of Rs. 1,07,32,082/- in the year 1997, the construction work was about to be commenced. When the construction was about to be commenced, Seethalakshmi Achi again preferred a representation for the reconveyance of site, undertaking to repay the compensation that has been paid to her for the reason that the acquired land has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. THE said representation has been rejected.