R MUNIASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to challenge the show cause notices issued by the third respondent dated 03.12.2004, bearing No.Na.Ka.B2.11080/2003, and also seek for a direction forbearing respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in Survey No.1426/19, 22, 23 and 33 (Old No.1204/part), bearing Door Nos.617, 618 and 619 and Door No.609 at Tiruthangal, Sivakasi Taluk.

(2.) IN fact, a similar notice also dated 03.12.2004 issued to another occupant in the very same survey number was challenged in W.P.No.4431/2004. The said writ petition was allowed by the order-dated 30.12.2004. While allowing the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the land having been classified as 'Grama Natham', the Government had no right to deal with the said land. For the said proposition of law, the learned Single Judge relied upon an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2004(3) CTC 270 - The Executive Officer, Kadathur Town Panchayat v. V.Swaminathan. As against the said order of the learned Single Judge, a writ appeal came to be filed in W.A.(MD)No.9/2007 at the instance of the newly impleaded 5th respondent herein. IN the said writ appeal, a Division Bench of this Court gave a categorical finding that the 5th respondent herein is not the owner of the said land and that its attempt to secure a patta in the year 1992 from the Revenue Authorities also failed. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the revenue authorities did not challenge the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, therefore, declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is further stated that the review petition No.12/2007 filed by the 5th respondent in the said writ appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 14.03.2007 and thus, the earlier order of this Court dated 30.12.2004 passed in W.P.No.4431 of 2004 has become final and conclusive. IN the light of the said order, which pertained to the very same Survey No.1426/42 (Old No.1204/part), the present writ petitioners are also entitled to succeed as their claim is in respect of the other parts of the very same Survey Number, namely 1426/19, 22, 23 and 33.

(3.) AS regards the above submissions of the learned counsel, we do agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even though the earlier writ petition came to be allowed at the admission stage, the learned Single Judge had only stated the legal position as regards the character of a land classified as 'Grama Natham'. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the said issue heard the Additional Government Pleader on the said question. Moreover, the learned Single Judge had chosen to follow the earlier Division Bench judgment, which in turn had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC 1421 (C.V.Subbaya v. P.Anjayya). Above all, the said order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the earlier Division Bench in an appeal which was preferred by the 5th respondent herein. Therefore, the grievance of the 5th respondent on that score cannot be countenanced. Whatever grievance which the 5th respondent had as against the order of the learned Single Judge, namely that he was not impleaded as a party, did not survive when once the 5th respondent had chosen to challenge the said order by filing a writ appeal in which the contentions of the 5th respondent were considered and ultimately rejected. Therefore, on that score, we do not find any scope to take a different view.