V SWAMINATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was running a hotel under the name and style of "Taluk Office Canteen" at No.11, Taluk Office Road, Saidapet Court Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 and even before him, his father Mr. P.K. Venkatadhri Aiyer has originally commenced business in the said place in or about 1960. THE place is situated within the campus of Saidapet Court, where the Saidapet Taluk Office is also situated. According to the petitioner, he has been paying rent for the land at the rate of Rs.3/- to the Public Works Department (in short 'P.W.D.'). He has also obtained necessary licence from the various authorities including the police for the purpose of running the canteen and the said canteen has catered to the needs of Advocates in the campus, Magistrates, Judicial Officers including large number of litigants apart from the general public and no objections were raised by the P.W.D. for the construction made by the father of the petitioner.

(2.) ON 29.03.1998, the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. along with some other officials and police have broke down the locks of the said canteen and have taken away all the belongings, demolished the super structure in spite of objection by the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. When a police complaint was given to the Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, an enquiry was made by the police stating that the demolition was at the instance of the P.W.D. When asked for any written order for the purpose of demolition there was no such order shown and it was done by the high-handed act of the police. The value of the items removed from the place is worth more than Rs.25,000/- apart from the demolition of the super structure put up by the petitioner. He has also filed a suit in O.S.No.4391 of 1997 for declaration that he is the lawful tenant of the Public Works Department and also for an injunction. In the said suit, the stand taken by the Public Works Department was that the property belongs to them and the Department has never authorized the petitioner and there was no agreement between the petitioner and their Department. It was also stated that the building has to be demolished in order to put up the construction for 32 Judicial Officers Quarters as per G.O.Ms.No.726, Home Department, dated 13.05.1996.

(3.) THE filing of the suit, the decree of the Civil Court and the dismissal of the appeal is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is as per G.O.Ms.No.748, Housing and Urban Development, dated 27.08.1993, the Government had instructed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to construct Quarters for Judicial Officers and in such circumstances, it is not possible to permit the petitioner to have the restoration of possession of the property. It is also not in dispute that factually after the writ petition was filed, wherein there was an order of status quo, the said portion in occupation of the petitioner is kept vacant even though the entire super structure is demolished. It is also stated that the construction of the Judicial Officers' Quarters has been completed and in spite of the completion, the place wherein the petitioner's canteen was demolished remains vacant.