K KATHALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that his father purchased the lands bearing Survey No. 409/1 and 409/2 in Thuvarankurichi village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. During his life time, in the year 1993 on the basis of oral partition, the petitioner was allotted the said lands. According to him, from 1993, he has been paying the kist and enjoying the said properties. Since the respondents 2 to 4 have decided to treat these lands as if they belong to the Government, and were taking steps to take possession of the lands by force, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No. 41 of 1999 before the Sub-Court, Pattukottai in March 1999. Though the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 104 of 1999 seeking for an order of injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his peaceful possession. Notice was ordered and the said petition is pending consideration by the Civil Court. THEreafter, according to the petitioner, on 16.6.1999, the 4th respondent along with the Village Administrative Officer, the Revenue Inspector and also with the police came to the said lands and tried to evict the petitioner by using bull dozers. THE petitioner and other owners prevented them and so a complaint was lodged against them. On that basis that petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No. 10895 of 1999 to issue a writ of mandamus, for bearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the said lands without following due process of law.

(2.) THIS Court ordered notice of motion. Pending that writ petition, the respondents claim that they have taken possession of the same. So, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No. 14554 of 1999, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to re-deliver possession of the said lands.

(3.) THE view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P., 1970 (I) Andh. L.T 88, which was affirmed by a Division Bench Meharunnissa Begum v. Government of A.P. It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute a title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. THE Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.