T. PAPPAMMAL Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Writ Petitions the prayer sought for by the petitioners are identical as the challenge is to the order dated 04.09.2015, passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, in and by which the appeals filed by the petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against them under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), were dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they are living in a small hamlet called 'Sagaya Nagar' within the limits of the Budhur village panchayat and claim to have been residing there for over 40 years. The petitioners would further state that the land in which they are presently residing, has been classified as "Meikkal Poramboke ". The petitioners would admit that they have not been granted patta, however claim to have been remitting land tax. Relying upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 854, dated 30.12.2006, the petitioners' requested for grant of patta stating that the Government has evolved a scheme for issuance of patta to occupants of Government Poramboke land including the lands classified as "Meikkal Poramboke ". While so, the second respondent, Tahsildar, Maduranthakam, initiated proceeding for eviction of the petitioners and notices under Section 6 of the Act were issued to the petitioners during April 2010, directing them to vacate the land within a period of 15 days. Challenging the said notices, two Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 9635 and 9636 of 2010, were filed by 32 petitioners including the petitioners herein and for a consequential direction to issue patta in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 854, Revenue Department, dated 30.12.2006. The said Writ Petitions were admitted and an order of interim stay was granted. After about four years, the Writ Petitions were listed before this Bench on 08.12.2014, on which date, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioners whether they are eligible for the benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 854 and if they are eligible, they would be entitled to the issuance of patta and if not eligible, proceedings to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and aggrieved parties would have the legal remedy under the said Act. It is stated that after the Writ Petitions were disposed of, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents on 16.02.2015, requesting for grant of patta in terms of the said Government Order. At that juncture, the petitioners were issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act, calling upon them to explain as to why, they should not be evicted from the Government lands. The petitioners submitted their reply on 08.06.2015, in which a request was made for issuance of patta and it is stated that the request made by the petitioners for grant of patta is still pending. Orders of eviction were passed on 24.06.2015.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after reiterating the factual averments and the earlier orders passed by this Court submitted that the reasons assigned by the first respondent for rejection of the petitioners' appeal is arbitrary and unjustified and several of the reasons are absolutely vague. It is further submitted that the first respondent failed to take note of the various Government Orders, which have been issued to rehabilitate the persons like that of the petitioners and the petitioners having been residing in the property for nearly 40 years, the first respondent should have considered their request in a proper perspective, extended the benefit of the Government Order and issued pattas to them. It is further submitted that the details which have been furnished in the impugned order are incorrect and in certain cases, there is a mistake in the identity of the person. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners and grant patta by extending the benefit of the Government Orders.