D VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL; REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE); SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT; CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU; CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD; SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action against the persons mentioned in her representation dated 24.03.2015 and 22.04.2015 in accordance with law for having illegally dispossessed her from the property bearing Old Door Number 31/105, New Door No.288/291, Nanjappa Gounder Street, Marakkara Town, Coimbatore District.

(2.) The Petitioner-in-Person would contend that she was in possession of the premises bearing Old Door Number 31/105, New Door No.288/291 along with other tenants therein. According to the petitioner, the total extent of the property mentioned above measures 5 cents and 205 square feet which originally belonged to Mrs. Lingammal. During her life time, Mrs. Lingammal executed a registered Will in favour of her son Mr. T. Gopalasamy, who is the brother of the petitioner herein. During the life time of Mrs. Lingammal, she has filed RCOP Nos. 58, 60, 94 and 96 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore as against the tenants. Out of the four Rent Control Original Petitions, RCOP Nos. 56, 60 and 94 of 1983 were ordered and the tenants were evicted. As far as RCOP No. 96 of 1983 is concerned, it was filed against Mr. Dharmalingam, one of the tenants in the above said property. After the death of Mrs. Lingammal, the Will came into effect and Mr. Gopalasamy was in possession of the above said property without any disturbance and he also prosecuted the RCOP No. 96 of 1983 against Dharmalingam. Ultimately, eviction was ordered in the above RCOP No. 96 of 1983 as against the tenant Mr. Dharmalingam. In the meantime, Mr. Gopalasamy has executed a registered Will dated 23.11.2000 respect of a portion of the property in favour of the petitioner and another Will dated 04.06.2013 whereby he executed the remaining property in favour of the petitioner's son Nithyanandam. Thus, according to the petitioner, by virtue of the above said Will dated 23.11.2000 and 04.06.2013, the petitioner and her son have become exclusive owners of the property aforesaid. By virtue of such ownership, the petitioner and her son have also impleaded themselves in the Execution Petition filed in the above RCOP No. 96 of 1983. It appears that the legal heirs of the above said Gopalasamy made a rival claim over the property. According to the petitioner, at the time of execution of the decree passed in RCOP No. 96 of 1983, the above said legal heirs, in collusion with the advocate commissioner appointed by the Court, have illegally demolished the property of the petitioner and her son with an ulterior motive thereby they were dispossessed. Immediately, the petitioner and her son have filed Civil suit in O.S. Nos. 269 and 455 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore. In the meantime, the above said property was fraudulently purchased by the respondents 11 and 12 herein and they have also mutated the revenue records and obtained patta in their name. Therefore, the petitioner and her son have impleaded the respondents 11 and 12 herein as parties in the above said suits in O.S. Nos. 269 and 455 of 2010. According to the petitioner, the suit in O.S. Nos. 269 and 455 of 2010 are pending adjudication before the Civil Court. It is the specific case of the petitioner that even as on date, the name of the petitioner is incorporated as assessee in the property tax demand register and she is continuously paying the same to the authorities concerned. Highlighting the above aspects, the petitioner has given a representation dated 24.03.2015 and 22.04.2015 to the respondents herein. According to the petitioner, as the respondents did not take any action on her complaint, she has come up with this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner-in-person would contend that the petitioner and her son are the owner of the property in question by virtue of the Will dated 23.11.2000 and 04.06.2013 executed by Gopalsamy. On the strength of such ownership, the petitioner impleaded herself as a party in EP No. 16 of 2014 to evict the tenant in respect of the property and to handover the possession of the shop to the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, the advocate commissioner appointed by the Civil Court in collusion with the local police have demolished the property on 13.03.2010. According to the petitioner, the property in question ought not to have been demolished and such demolition had taken place at the instance of the son and daughter-in-law of the testator who executed Will in favour of the petitioner and her son. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a detailed representation to the respondents to take action against the offenders with reference to the illegal demolition of the property in question, but so far no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner-in-person prayed for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents to pass orders on her representation dated 24.03.2015 and 22.04.2015 within a specified time limit to be fixed by this Court.