(Judgment of the Court was made by THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) This Writ Appeal arises out of the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6612 of 2017, in and by which, the learned Judge directed the third respondent to remove the lock and seal of the premises and permit the appellant to remove his articles and thereafter, to put lock and seal to the premises and granted the liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy before the competent forum.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3.
3. It appears that the appellant was in occupation of the premises measuring 1509 sq.ft. bearing old Door No.19/1 new Door No.47/1, Luz Church Road, Chennai belonging to Kapaleeswarar Thirukoil, which according to the official respondents, it was an encroachment, whereas, the appellant claimed that it was leased out to his forefathers about 90 years ago and the lease was extended and his tenancy has to be regularized. While so, it seems that the appellant was dispossessed and the premises were put under lock and seal without the knowledge of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant moved the authorities to permit him to remove his articles from the said premises. By proceedings, dated 15.12.2016, the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department, has permitted the appellant to remove his articles, however, as a condition precedent to this, he directed the appellant to give an affidavit having duly sworn to by him to the effect that he would not cause damage to the property of the temple and also pay damages towards use and occupation charges without prejudice. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the appellant moved this Court.
4. By order, dated 17.3.2017, while disposing the Writ Petition, the learned Judge directed the third respondent to remove the lock and seal of the premises and permit the appellant to remove his articles and for this purpose, a date, i.e. 21.3.2017 was also fixed. Questioning the above order, the appellant has come forward with the present writ appeal.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Judge has not dealt with the impugned proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, but only permitted the appellant to remove the articles.
6. Admittedly, the appellant has not claimed possession of the subject premises in the writ petition, but only sought for quashing the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, dated 15.12.2016 and to handover his belongings lying in the premises. The learned Judge permitted the appellant to remove his belongings by fixing a specific date, in respect of which, we do not find any infirmity in the order to interfere. However, we make it clear that there would be no necessary for the appellant to give an affidavit as insisted by the Joint Commissioner in regard to payment of damages towards use and occupation of the premises. It is always open to the official respondents to recover the use and occupation charges by initiating appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law after establishing the same.
With the above observation, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. Since the date fixed by the learned Judge, i.e. 21.3.2017 has lapsed, the 3rd respondent is directed to permit the appellant to remove his belongings by fixing a fresh date within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting upon an affidavit duly sworn to by the appellant as directed in the impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2016 by him.