CHINNASAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with the Petitioner's right to properties situated in S.No.181, Vattuvanahalli, Pavalanthur, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the respondents 3 and 5 and also grant monetary compensation for the damage caused to the agricultural crops by considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2011 and legal notices dated 14.08.2010 and 17.01.2011.

(2.) It is averred in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner occupied an extent of 8.37 cents in S.No.181, Pavalanthur Village, Pennagaram Taluk and was continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land since the life time of his ancestors for the past 100 years. The aforesaid land was owned by Sendarayar Perumal Samy Thirukovil. According to the Petitioner, except the temple authorities, no other person has any legal right to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. The Petitioner and his brother filed O.S.No.8 of 2010 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram, against five persons for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in the guise of forming a road or causing damage to the properties. The said suit was decreed on 02.08.2010. According to the Writ Petitioner, the 4th and 5th respondents had entered into the property and forcibly took possession and damaged agricultural crops under the guise of laying the Road in S.F.No.181. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed with the above said prayer.

(3.) The 3rd respondent/Thasildar, Pennagaram, filed detailed Counter affidavit. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit stating that the Writ Petitioner was in possession of S.F.No.181 which commences from Reserved Forest area and passed through survey fields of 158, 159, 175, 176, 174, 172, 183, 181, 180 and 845. The Writ Petitioner had destroyed the Plan marked for the existing pathway available in S.F.No.181 of temple land for his personal gains. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that S.F.No.181 belongs to the 6th respondent/Temple Authority. Already there was a pathway in the said survey Number. The Panchayat sanctioned approval from the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Pennagaram, so as to form a mud road. Therefore, the 5th respondent has laid the mud road in S.F.No.181 in the interest of Public and the same is not for any personal use. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the Petitioner has obtained a decree against individual persons under the capacity of a Private person and not against anybody who holds office and further the Panchayat or the temple was not added as a party in the decree proceedings. Therefore, the decree obtained by the Petitioner will not bind on the respondents.