S KRISHNASAMY GOUNDER Vs. TAHSILDAR KANGEYAM TALUKK DT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that he is the owner of a land measuring of 2.81 acres comprised in Old Survey No.734/1C and new Survey No.734/1C1 at Nadupalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Erode District. THE petitioner further states that he put up a small well on the said property for the purpose of irrigation and also got electricity service connection for the same in the year 1992. He has also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.283 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Kangeyam for bare injunction against the Government officials. THE said civil suit is still pending. THE learned District Munsif has not granted any interim injunction. In the mean while, the third respondent filed W.P.No.1378 of 2007 before this Court for a direction to the respondents therein to take action against the sixth respondent therein viz., the petitioner herein on the basis of the enquiry report dated 17.07.2006 filed before the third respondent therein for removal of illegal encroachment on the LBP canal area, digging a well in R.S.No.634/1B, getting electricity service connection in S.C.No.227 in violation of the electricity laws and committing theft of canal water. Though the petitioner herein was added as sixth respondent in the said writ petition, this Court at the admission stage itself disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:- "THE third respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.09.2006 in the light of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector in his proceedings in U.Mu.No.609/2006, dated 17.07.2006 on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the sixth respondent herein and pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or on its production. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed by this Court on the merits of the case."

(3.) A perusal of the order of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition would go to show that this Court only directed the Tahsildar to hold appropriate enquiry and to pass orders to evict the encroachment. It does not mean that even without holding any enquiry, the Tahsildar could straight away throw out the petitioner from the possession. If the petitioner is an encroacher, it is for the Tahsildar to hold necessary enquiry and to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and then to pass order directing him to vacate the encroached area. But the impugned order of the Tahsildar directing the TNEB officials to disconnect the service connection does not contain any such detail.