The writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents to remove the compound wall which is situated in Thellar Village Survey No.412 and further direct the second respondent to conduct the survey in the petitioner trust's patta land Survey No.233 on the basis of the petitioner's petition dated 01.12.2016.
2.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents after taking notice, placed on record the proceedings dated 06.01.2017 and brought to the notice of this Court para-2 of the proceedings and he would submit that the prayer made by the petitioner not to remove the compound wall which is situated in Thellar Village Survey No.412 and further direct the second respondent to conduct the survey in the petitioner trust's patta land Survey No.233 on the basis of the petitioner's petition dated 01.12.2016 is untenable. Since proper survey and measurement, in respect of land covered in Survey No.412 is also prescribed as 'paadhai poromoboke' on 15.10.2016, the petitioner cannot make the said prayer.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Chairman of Nandivarman Educational Trust which is running a Arts and Science Co-educational College in the name and style of King Nandivarman College of Arts and Science and it is approved by the Government of tamil Nadu affiliated to University of Madras/Tiruvalluvar University, Vellore) at Thellar, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. He would further submit that 99% of the people belonging educational backward area are getting higher education. Therefore, it goes without saying that the petitioner's Trust is giving education only with the service motive who are living in and around petitioner's Trust. While so, adjacent to the petitioner's college, there are three Government Buildings contructed in the poromboke land viz., 1.Grain ware house; 2.Community Service Centre; and 3.Combined Heath Centre. All the Government Buildings are misused by the Anti Social Elements in the Night Time and even in the day time, the anti social elements are coming into the college ground and harassing the women students. Therefore, on receipt of several complaints from the students asking to take action against the anti social elements, the petitioner has decided to put up compound wall in Survey No.412 which is situated at Thar Salai Poromboke land, where the three Government Government buildings are situated. Therefore, to prevent the disturbance to the students, the petitioner has constructed the compound wall by spending Rs.4 lakhs of their own money. When the matter stood as above, on receipt of some false complaints from third parties, the respondents have given threat to the petitioner to demolish the compound wall. Therefore, the petitioner has been advised to come forward with this petition before this Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also applied to the second respondent to conduct survey about the petitioner trust's land on 01.12.2016, but the second respondent has not taken any steps to survey the land in question.
4.On the other hand, the Block Development Officer, Thellar Panchayat Union/third respondent herein had issued a notice to remove the compound wall. In view of the above threat, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5.This Court is unable to entertain the writ petition for the following three reasons:
(i) Firstly, the petitioner, in para-5.1 of his affidavit, has candidly admitted that the land covered in Survey No.412 is 'Saalai Poromoboke', wherein three Government Buildings are situated. While so, when the petitioner is aware of the fact that the land covered in Survey No.412 is 'Thar Saalai Promoke land, although he has continuously received complaints regarding anti social elements, he should not have put up any construction in the land belonging to the respondents. After putting up the construction by spending amount from his own side, he cannot ask the third respondent to measure the land in dispute and till date, no action has been taken.
(ii) Secondly, the respondents herein have undertaken survey in the land in S.No.412 which is Thar Salai Poromboke consisting of three Government Buildings on 15.09.2016.Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the survey and measurement given by the third respondent and as a result, their lands have also been included in the Survey No.412, it is for the petitioner trust to work out their remedy before the Civil Court, but not before this Court with the present writ petition.
6.Learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner trust was issued notice on 29.11.2016 calling upon them to submit their reply. Learned Government Advocate would submit that till date, no reply is received and when the petitioner trust is able to come to this Court with the present writ petition seeking two prayers, he should have atleast submitted their reply. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already submitted their reply on 01.04.2017 but neither a copy of the reply was furnished, not it is stated in the pleadings. In any event, the petitioner has to workout his remedy before the Civil Court, as they have admitted that they have raised construction in the land covered in S.No.412, which is admittedly a 'Thar Poromboke Land' which is having three Government Buildings.
7.It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Vandavasi, seeking the following prayer:
jhth brhj;ij ghh;itapl;L mjd; mst[fs; Rw;Wg;g[w NH;epiyfs; jhth brhj;jpy; fl;lg;gl;Ls;s fhk;gt[z;l; Rth;. nghf;Ftuj;J tHpg;ghijfs;. fy;Yhhp mike;Js;s tpjk;. murpdh; nkdpiyg;gs;sp mike;Js;s tpjk; cs;spl;l midj;ija[k; ghh;itapl;L cs;sJ cs;sthW tiuglj;Jld; Toa mwpf;ifia ,k;kd;wj;jpw;F bjspt[g;gLj;j jf;f cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;f ntz;oaJ mtrpaKk; epahaKkhfpwJ.
8.Having filed the civil suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents to measure the suit land, the petitioner is not entitled to file the present writ petition, as parallel proceedings are not permissible.
9.Therefore, for all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner-Trust to work out their remedy in the pending suit. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.