SMT.RAJATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition on hand is filed for a direction to forbear the respondents in any manner dispossessing the writ petitioner from the land in Patta 275 Survey No.18/8 measuring 1.84 acres Hasthampatti Village in Salem District.

(2.) The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, states that a piece of land measuring 1.8 acres in Survey No.18/3 Hasthampatti Village was held by one Venga Gounder, the great Grandfather of the writ petitioner's husband. The said land has been in continuous use and enjoyment and possession of the family of the writ petitioner's husband for over 67 years. The Settlement Officer of Dharapuram granted patta after sub division of land Survey Number as 18/8 and Patta Number as 275. The land is assessed and tax is being paid.

(3.) The writ petitioner states that the land was under cultivation at the time of filing of the writ petition and the paddy was 25 days old. On 19.11.2003, the second respondent came to the land and informed that the said land should not be used by the writ petitioner for cultivation. The respondents had not listening to the words of the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner made a representation on 21.11.2003 to the first respondent and to the District Collector on 24.11.200 Once again on 4.12.2003, the officials came to the premises and forced the writ petitioner not to cultivate the land. The writ petitioner states that she is in possession and enjoyment of the land as an absolute owner and therefore, she will not be in a position to evict the premises. The writ petitioner made several representations against the forcible dispossession made by the officials. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition for a direction to forbear the respondents from dispossessing the writ petitioner from the land described in the present writ petition.