GAS LINKS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant alleged that his L. P. G. Godown was being demolished by the respondents without resorting to due process of law and prayed for a mandamus to restrain them from doing so. The learned single Judge directed the Commissioner, land Administration to pass appropriate orders regarding the question whether encroachment had been committed by the appellant or by the sixth respondent. So, aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed. It is a matter of fact that in two earlier writ petitions relating to the same issue of encroachment, the authorities had categorically stated there is no encroachment.

(2.) THE litigation has a long history and there have been earlier proceedings before this Court. On 27. 12. 1989, the Government, by G. O. Ms. No. 1632, allotted land measuring 827 sq. mts. in Survey No. 2057/2a of Koyambedu Village to the appellant herein. The terms and conditions as well as the cost of the land was not fixed at that point of time. The appellant was informed thatt he orders relating to this will be issued separately. In 1991/1992, when the appellant approached the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Corporation of chennai for approval of his building plan, the Corporation sanctioned the plan by proceedings dated 22. 6. 1992. Though the land allotted by the Government was aboutg 810 sq. mts. , the appellant put up the constructions only in an extent of 600 sq. mts. in order to maintain safety distance as per the provisions of the explosives Act. In the year 1993, Writ Petition No. 4496 of 1993 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the sixth respondent for a direction to the authorities to prevent encroachment by the appellant on the road and to restore the road. The Corporation of Chennai and the C. M. D. A. were respondents in that writ petition. It was disposed of with certain directions. Subsequently in the year 1998, Writ Petition No. 5901 of 1998 was filed alleging that the appellant has encroached upon the road in the layout and for a direction to the authorities to remove such encroachment. The appellant was the sixth respondent in the latter writ petition. The Corporation of Chennai and C. M. D. A. were the other respondents therein. The said writ petition was dismissed on 12. 7. 2000 by the Division Bench with liberty to the petitioner therein to file a civil suit, if necessary, under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) THE case of the appellant is that in the year 2005, the Deputy Tahsildar, egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk came to their godown alleging encroachment by the appellant. The appellant gave a detailed representation. Notwithstanding the same, on 14. 10. 2005, it is alleged that officials threatened demolition of the encroachment and therefore, the present writ petition was filed. The parties to the writ petition are, in addition to the various authorities, the sixth respondent, who was the fourth petitioner in W. P. No. 5901 of 2008.