R.SUBBIAH,J.
"IT IS HIGH TIME TO CURB THE ENCROACHMENTS ON THE GOVERNMENT LANDS WITH IRON HANDS - OTHERWISE, IT IS TOO TOUGH TO EVICT AND IT WOULD GET GOING ENDLESSLY." That is what we feel about the present case on hand.
2. The petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 05.10.2017 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, restore the tea shop of the petitioner comprised in T.S.No.811/2, situated at Ward No.10, Block 19, Alagar Kovil Main Road, Madurai North, Madurai and further direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards compensation to the petitioner for illegally removing the Tea Stall against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. By consent, the writ petition has been taken up for final disposal.
4. The case of the petitioner is that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in T.S.No. 811/2 situated at Ward No.10, Block 19, Alagar Kovil Main Road, Madurai North, Madurai District, for more than 20 years. She had put up a petty tea shop and has been paying the tax regularly. She has also got electricity service connection in her name. While so, the second respondent issued the impugned notice dated 05.10.2017 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon her to show cause as to why she should not be evicted from the property in question and submit her explanation on or before 08.10.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the office of the second respondent on 08.10.2017 along with the relevant records, however, neither the second respondent nor any official was available therein and she was asked to meet the second respondent on 09.10.2017. But, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the second respondent demolished the tea shop of the petitioner without issuing the final notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, under the impression that the property in question in T.S.No.811/2 measuring an extent of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 0.0511.0 acres is classified as Tank Poramboke. Originally, the said land vested with the Forest Department and thereafter, the said land was given to the Tea Plantation Corporation Limited for lease. However, the second respondent, without issuing the notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, demolished the tea shop of the petitioner and that too, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in G.Ramasubramani v. The District Collector, Madurai District and another [W.P(MD)No.18760 of 2017, decided on 09.10.2017], ordered for restoration of the demolished Tea Bunk Shop of the petitioner therein in T.S.No.811/2, Thallakulam, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and hence, the petitioner herein also stood on the similar footing and prayed for quashing the impugned notice dated 05.10.2017 issued by the second respondent and consequently, to restore the tea shop of the petitioner.
6. Countering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit http://www.judis.nic.in 5 filed by the second respondent, contended that the property in S.No.811/2 measuring an extent of 6 cents was classified as Vaikal Poramboke and one K.V.Baskaran encroached upon the said land and the said Baskaran, who is an encroacher, had permitted the petitioner herein to run a tea shop. The said Baskaran filed W.P.No. 23817 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court on 04.07.2002 and pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent dated 17.09.2002, the eviction proceedings have been initiated to remove the encroachments. The very same Baskaran challenged the order of the first respondent before the Commissioner, Land Administration, Chennai, who, confirmed the order of the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P.No.33537 of 2003 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.08.2017 with a direction to remove the encroachments within one week. In the present case, the petitioner has been given opportunity of hearing for five times, viz., (i) while passing order dated 17.09.2002; (ii) while passing order dated 29.09.2003; (iii) while passing order in W.P.No.23817 of 2002, dated 04.07.2002; (iv) while passing order in W.P.No.33537 of 2003, dated 10.08.2017 and
(v) by way of impugned notice dated 05.10.2017 and accordingly, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the encroachment made by the petitioner has been removed and thus, prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available before us, including the order passed by this Court in G.Ramasubramani v. The District Collector, Madurai District and another [W.P(MD)No.18760 of 2017, decided on 09.10.2017].
8. In the case on hand, a careful scrutiny of the materials available before us would make it amply clear that it is the case of the respondents that originally, the land in T.S.No.811/2 vested with the Forest Department and thereafter, the said land was given to the Tea Plantation Corporation Limited and thereafter, the said land was encroached upon by one K.V.Baskaran, who in turn, permitted the petitioner herein and another to run tea shops therein.
9. No doubt, any action initiated against the illegal encroachments put up over the Government lands would be only in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and any deviation or failure in complying with the mandates of the law would vitiate the entire eviction proceedings in toto. However, it is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner herein had tried to drag on the eviction proceedings under the guise of non-compliance of the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act for two decades. http://www.judis.nic.in 7
10. Though the main grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent before demolishing the tea shop in question failed to comply with the principles of natural justice, more particularly, by issuing notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in our considered opinion, the vehement contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is that sufficient opportunity of hearing was already given to the petitioner to put forth her case before the second respondent and thereafter only, the eviction proceedings have been initiated in accordance with law.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the eviction proceedings initiated by the second respondent by way of the impugned notice dated 05.10.2017 and admittedly, the alleged encroachment had already been removed on 08.10.2017. Thus, we find that there is absolutely no merit in the present writ petition and hence, the question of ordering for restoration of the tea shop of the petitioner does not arise at all for consideration.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition stands dismissed, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the appropriate forum, if she is so advised, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.