B SARASWATHI Vs. TAHSILDAR POONAMALLEE TALUK THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions facts are similar and the respondents are also same. The petitioners in all these cases are trespassers of the Government land, and they claim that they have put up constructions and have also obtained electricity connection. It is also their case that they are paying property tax. IN all these cases, respective petitioners admit that they came into occupation of poromboke land, not on the basis of any consent by the Government. Their case is that on 23.10.1997, the respondents-officers sought surrender of possession, which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions. The relief sought for in all these writ petitions is to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any action for dispossessing the petitioners from the respective premises, without following the procedures laid down under the Land Encroachment Act. Even though there are number of writ petitions, I do not want to extract the facts separately in view of the common case put forward by them.

(2.) A learned Judge of this Court while ordering notice of motion ordered to maintain statu quo. After receipt of notice, learned Additional Government Pleader argued the case on instructions.

(3.) IN the decision reported in Chief Secretary and others v. Mathai Kuriakose and others, A.I.R. 1989 Ker. 113, the question that came up for consideration was whether trespassers of a forest land are entitled to get an injunction against the State. Both the trial court as well as the first appellate court granted injunction against the State from evicting the trespassers, otherwise than by due process of law. The matter was taken up before the High Court in second appeal. While considering the same, a learned Judge of the Kerala High Court said, that even if the trespasser is in exclusive possession the court will not aid him being a wrong doer. IN paragraph 27 of the judgment, the learned Judge held thus: