SELLATHAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in the appeal is the fifth respondent in the writ petition. She got impleaded as such as the legal representative of the fourth respondent Pugazhenthi, her husband. The writ petition came to be filed by one Namperumal Naidu, the fourth respondent in the appeal, (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to utilize the land in survey No. 705/1, 706, 707 and 708 of Kulathukunjai Road, Chitravudhampalayam village, Dharapuram Taluk, Periyar District for the purpose of widening the road and for extension of the drainage facility and in the event of non utilising the land for the said purpose, to reassign the same to the petitioner as per the Board of Revenue Standing Orders 90 (32 ).

(2.) THE grievance of the writ petitioner was that he was the owner of the lands in the above referred to survey numbers. The lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of school by respondents 1 and 2. After completion of the acquisition proceedings, possession was handed over to the second respondent. For the reasons best known to them, the respondents did not utilise the lands for the purpose for which it was acquired. The writ petitioner got assigned a portion of the land and the remaining land was encroached upon by the fourth respondent in the writ petition by puting up a construction thereon and obtained a licence for having a liquor shop. When the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up a school for imparting education to the public, the statutory respondents cannot allow the fourth respondent to put up a superstructure and vend liquor. On that premise the writ petitioner came before the Court for issuance of writ of mandamus.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 contended before the learned single Judge that the appellant's husband, the fourth respondent in the writ petition filed a suit in O. S. No. 187 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram and obtained an order of injunction restraining them from making any transfer of the land to any other person or even change the name in the revenue records. Due to pendency of the suit, the statutory respondents 1 and 2 were not able to take any action, even though notice under section 182 of the District and Municipalities Act has been issued against the fourth respondent, the appellant's husband.