V ARUNAGIRI Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS THIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE three Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 29. 6. 1998 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition nos. 1959, 2740 and 2796 of 1990. The writ petitioners have filed these writ appeals, as the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the aforesaid common order of the learned single Judge. The facts and questions of law that arise for consideration are common to each of the appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the learned single Judge did not consider the specific contentions raised by the appellants in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that the respondents could not demolish the houses or evict the appellants without following the procedure as contemplated under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act; the decisions referred by the learned single Judge in the impugned common order relate to exercise of equitable jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, in relation to unauthorised occupants or trespassers and also as to the extent of the protection to be given by the courts in regard to the possession of such persons; but in those cases, protection was not available to the parties as are available under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act; the Act itself is'tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act'and it takes note of unauthorised occupation or the acts of trespass; and even to remove such encroachments, provisions are made. THE learned counsel also added that the question of law in regard to removal of encroachment on the Government land, is made clear by the various judgments of this court.