Dismissed

S.Panjavarnam v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Jun 2017WA(MD)/1064/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order dismissing a plea for allotment of housing plots to encroachers. The High Court upheld the judgment, stating encroachers have no vested right, but directed them to approach the Collector for alternate sites as the landless poor.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellants to submit individual applications to the District Collector for alternate sites within four months.

S.Panjavarnam Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.A.(MD) Nos.1064 of 2014 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014

¶7

S.Panjavarnam

¶8

Manimurugan

¶9

Susila

¶10

Ramila

¶11

S.Krishnadevi 6. K.Kanagavalli

¶12

Kathiresan

¶13

Selvi 9. R.Pappammal 10.V.Meenakshi

¶14

11.Vijayakumar 12.Saravana Kumar 13.Jeyanthi 14.Pushpavalli 15.Annalakshmi 16.Thangeswaran 17.R.Ramuthai 18.Roopavathi 19.Vairamani 20.R.Rajendran 21.Amutha 22.Selvi 23.M.Dhanalakshmi 24.V.Saraswathi 25.Ram Babu 26.Vasantha 27.Savithri 28.Usha 29.Lalitha 30.Asha 31.Nirmala 32.Padma 33.Lakshmi 34.Jeya https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 35.Durga 36.Kalavathi 37.B.Devi 38.Rajeshwari 39.Sumathi

¶15

¶16

40.Gnanam 41.Muthulakshmi 42.Muthu 43.R.Ramamoorthy 44.Mariammal 45.Muthukumar 46.Banumathi 47.Sagunthala 48.Selvi 49.Divya 50.T.K.Saroja 51.K.G.Lakshmi 52.Vimala 53.N.Geetha 54.J.S.Nirmala 55.K.Krishnaveni 56.Radha 57.M.Visalakshi 58.L.Chellammal 59.S.Chellammal 60.R.A.Lakshmi 61.Renuka Devi 62.Kotta Malai 63.Deivanai 64.Samayamuthu 65.Panchavarnam 66.Kuncharam 67.Muniyammal 68.Mareeswari 69.Karuppaee 70.Mahalakshmi 71.Parameshwari 72.M.Vijaya 73.Nagajothi 74.Chithra 75.Panchavarnam 76.G.Vijaya 77.D.Pappa 78.Muthu Pandi 79.Pandiyammal 80.Ponnumayil 81.Jeeva 82.R.Meenakshi 83.Parameshwari 84.Muniyammal 85.Manimekalai 86.Pappathi 87.Thirukkammal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 88.Krishnammal 89.Maruthavalli 90.Chellapandiyammal 91.Mennakshi Sundari 92.Pothumani

¶17

¶18

93.B.Dhanalakshmi 94.Kantham 95.Indra 96.Santhi 97.Ramana 98.R.Padmavathy 99.P.S.Rajeshwari 100.K.V.Devi 101.Pandiyammal 102.Neelavathi 103.Susila 104.K.G.Ramila 105.J.B.Girija 106.J.S.Dharsini 107.Vasantha 108.S.Subbu Lakshmi 109.Parameswari 110.Chellamani 111.Valli 112.Amutha 113.Subbulaksmi 114.Dhanalakshmi 115.Ayyammal 116.Thangeshwari 117.Vijaya 118.Manju 119.Chithra 120.Rajeshwari 121.Durai 122.Rajesh 123.Ramnath 124.Shenbagavalli 125.Gracy 126.Chandra 127.Saroja 128.Kamala 129.K.Vasanthi 130.Rathiga 131.Sarojini 132.Karpagavalli 133.Rajeshwari 134.Chandra 135.Thangam 136.Nagoor Ammal 137.Pandi 138.Santha 139.Nagalakshmi 140.Vasantha https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 141.P.Packiyam 142.Jeya 143.Nagarathinam 144.Ravindranath 145.R.Ganesan

¶19

¶20

146.Murugan 147.M.Arasakkal 148.Indumathi 149.M.Chellapandi 150.Banu 151.L.P.Prema 152.V.L.Maheswari 153.Muniyammal 154.Meena 155.Umaiyal 156.Chandrasekaran 157.Ganesh 158.Mookkammal 159.Kumaresan 160.Pitchaiyammal 161.Manimekalai 162.Kuppumani ... Appellants Vs.

¶21

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary, Housing Department, Chennai. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandhanam, Chennai.

¶22

3.The Chief Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

¶23

Chennai – 600 035.

¶24

4.The Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Madurai Housing Board, Avaniyapuram, Madurai.

¶25

5.The Assistant Secretary, (Allotment), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-35.

¶26

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Madurai. .... Respondents

¶27

PRAYER :- Writ Appeal has been filed under clause 15 of the letters patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.7175 of 2009, dated 31.07.2014.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

Prayer in WP(MD)No.7175/2009:-

¶30

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to divide the land in S.No. 411/1 and

¶31

¶32

1/1 , at Avaniyapuram into housing plots and allot the same to the petitioners as promised by the respondent on so many occasions.

¶33

For Appellants : Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Veil Kani Raju For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R6. Mr.S.Nagarajan, for R2 to R5. Special Government Pleader for RR2 to 5

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶36

Heard Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Veil Kani Raju appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 6 and Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.

¶37

2.With the consent of either side, the writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

¶38

3.This appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P. (MD).No.7175 of 2009, dated 31.07.2014. The said writ petition was filed by the appellants / writ petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to divide the land in Survey No.411/1 and 1/1 at Avaniyapuram into housing plots and allot the same to the appellants.

¶39

4.The case of the appellants is that they are all encroachers of the said property and the land was subsequently handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.110, dated 04.02.1998 and the Housing Board proposed to develop the land into a lay-outs under the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project and the Local Planning Authority has also approved the lay-outs. The appellants would further contend that when they were evicted from the land, they were given assurance by the District Collector that after the lay-out is formed, they would be allotted plots and contrary to the said assurance, the plots are now sought to be sold out to the general public.

¶40

5.The Housing Board took a stand that the land in question is classified as industrial purpose and there is no question of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allotting them for any individuals. The writ Court, taking into consideration the facts as well as the stand taken by the Housing Board observed that even assuming the stand taken by the appellants is true, they are only encroachers of the property and have got no vested interest into the property and encroachers are

¶41

¶42

bound to be evicted. At that juncture, a prayer was made on behalf of the appellants to grant alternate site, at least.

¶43

6.Considering the said submissions, while dismissing the writ petition, it was left open to the appellants to make an application to the District Collector, seeking alternate site in any other place and such application is made, it was observed that it is for the District Collector to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶44

7.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we are of the firm view that the order passed by the learned single Judge is perfectly in order, as the appellants being encroachers cannot have any vested right to claim that a particular property has to be allotted to them. However, the writ Court, taking note of the fact that certain people are landless poor, granted liberty to the appellants to approach the District Collector for allotment of alternate site. In fact, this is appropriate thing that the appellants should do as they can have no claim or lien over the land in question.

¶45

8.Accordingly, while dismissing the writ appeal, we direct the appellants to submit individual applications to the District Collector for grant of alternate site and if such applications are submitted by them, the District Collector shall direct his subordinate officers to conduct an enquiry and ascertain the eligibility or otherwise of the appellants for allotment of alternate site, whether they are landless poor etc., and consider the applications on merits in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Assistant Registrar(CSIII)

¶48

/True Copy/

¶49

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶50

¶51

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Housing Department, Chennai.

¶52

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶53

Revenue Department, Madurai.

¶54

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.60189

¶55

+One cc to Mr.S.Nagarajan, Advocate, SR.No.60036

¶56

+One cc to Mr.M.VeilkaniRaju, Advocate, SR.No.59959

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Skm/Arul

¶58

RL/6C/6P/KKR/SAR4/28/6/2017

¶59

W.A.(MD) Nos.1064 of 2014

¶60

and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2014 13.06.2017

S.Panjavarnam v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Panjavarnam v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Officer Vs P.Thangarasu

Hotel Agasthiya Private Vs the Principal District Court

The Secretary to Government Vs P.S. Saravanakumar

M.Maragatha Valli, Vs the Joint Director of

S.Chellapandi, Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Jesintha Shanthi, Vs the Superintendent of Police