A. VENKATESH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 9th respondent herein and others filed O.S. No. 442 of 2013, on the file of District Munsif, Tenkasi, seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and other reliefs. The petitioner was having a building in the suit site. It was illegally demolished by the Tenkasi Municipality. The learned Trial Munsif by Judgment and Decree, dtd. 6/7/2004 partly decreed the suit. The relief with regard to declaration of their title was negatived. However, the defendant Municipality was directed to restore the position that originally obtained . Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court, Tenkasi Municipality filed A.S. No. 118 of 2004 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. The first appeal was dismissed on 24/6/2005. Challenging the same, S.A. No. 393 of 2006 was filed before this Court. In the Second Appeal, the plaintiffs filed Cross Objection (MD)No. 1 of 2007. By Judgment and Decree, dtd. 11/8/2016, the Second Appeal filed by the Municipality was dismissed, while the Cross Objection was allowed. The suit itself was decreed in toto.

(2.) Contending that without filing Cross Objection in the First Appeal, the Cross Objection could not have been filed in the Second Appal, the Tenkasi Municipality has filed Review Application. There was a delay in filing the Review Application. The delay was condoned by order dtd. 26/10/2018. The Review application is yet to be numbered and disposed of. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed E.P. No. 201 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi for executing the Decree passed in their favour. As per the decree, the defendant Municipality was directed to put up construction and restore the original status. Since the Municipality did not comply with the said directives the plaintiffs sought leave of the Executing Court to put up construction and get the cost of construction reimbursed later. By order dtd. 20/2/2018, the executing Court permitted the plaintiffs to put up construction on their own and thereafter, get the value reimbursed. Pursuant to the order of the Executing Court, the plaintiffs started to put up construction. At this stage, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be a devotee of temple, whose wall is adjacent to the suit site. The Writ Petitioner wants this Court to direct the District Administration as well as the local Municipality to prevent the construction that is being put up by the 9th respondent.