A.T.Ganapathi v. The Collector,Cuddalore District

O R D E RThe petitioner had purchased a vacant site from one Selvarajby means of a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2007. The vacantsite in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 is at Kottai Madil Street,(Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, CuddaloreDistrict. As per the sale deed, the land measures east-west 37 ½feet and north-south 75 feet. In the sale deed, it is mentionedthat there was a pathway and according to the petitioner, it wasmistakenly mentioned in the sale deed. According to thepetitioner, the revenue records also show wrong entries. 2.Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 2007before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Thittakudi, praying for permanent injunction restraining therespondents herein from in any manner interfering with his peacefulpossession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property. 'B' scheduleproperty is 9 ft east-west and 75 ft north-south in the 'A'schedule property, that measures 37 ½ ft east-west and 75 ft north-south. There is also another prayer of mandatory injunctiondirecting the respondents 1 to 3 herein to rectify the revenuerecords relating to suit 'B' schedule property by removing theentry as 'Panchayat road or land' and to show it as petitioner'sprivate property. 3.The suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.07.2009. Thereafter,the petitioner made an application on 21.10.2009 to the fourthrespondent seeking permission to construct a building in the entireextent of the aforesaid land. The fourth respondent returned thesaid application stating that an interim application to set asidethe ex-parte decree was filed and the same is pending andtherefore, the application seeking permission to commence the workcould not be granted. 4.As the fourth respondent returned the application, thepetitioner filed an appeal on 26.11.2009 to the first respondentpresuming that the first respondent is the Appellate Authority.The first respondent failed to dispose the appeal filed by thepetitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a writpetition in W.P.No.681 of 2010 before this Court seeking for adirection to the first respondent to dispose the appeal. This Courtpassed an order directing the first respondent to pass orders onthe appeal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy ofthat order. The first respondent passed an order on 13.04.2010remanding the matter to the fourth respondent and the petitionerwas directed to approach the fourth respondent.5.According to the petitioner, the order of the firstrespondent is illegal. Being a statutory authority, the firstrespondent should have signed the order but the order did not havethe signature. Further, it is stated that the first respondentought not to have delegated his work to the fourth respondent, his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subordinate. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order isnull and void. 6.The petitioner further states that the fourth and fifthrespondents along with a band of people had demolished the compoundwall put up by the petitioner. It is also stated that thepetitioner was attacked by hooligans on 06.03.2010 causing grievousinjuries. 7.Based on the order of the first respondent dated13.04.2010, the fourth respondent sent a notice dated 20.04.2010informing the petitioner that the blue print submitted by thepetitioner was not in accordance with the F.M.B. sketch and thatthe street and other buildings around the site were also not noted.The fourth respondent directed the petitioner to rectify thedefects and to resubmit the same.8.The petitioner states that based on the oral permissiongiven by the first respondent, he put up some construction. 9.The fourth respondent issued a notice dated 21.04.2010under Sections 199, 209 and 317(A) of the Tamil Nadu DistrictMunicipalities Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act)directing the petitioner not to proceed with the construction,since no permission was granted for construction.10.Further, the fourth respondent issued the impugned noticedated 23.04.2010 directing the petitioner to remove theunauthorised construction put up by him within five days. It isstated that the impugned notice was issued under Sections 216(1),(2), 313 and 317 of the Act. The fourth respondent also issuedanother notice dated 23.04.2010 returning the application dated21.04.2010 seeking permission to have construction at the aforesaidland. In the said notice, as many as 15 defects were cited. 11.In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed thepresent writ petition seeking to quash the impugned notice dated23.04.2010 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorizedconstruction and consequently to restrain the respondents fromdemolishing any construction raised by the petitioner in theproperty bearing S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 measuring east-west37 ½ feet and north-south 75 feet = 2812 ½ sq.ft. in Kottai MadilStreet, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, CuddaloreDistrict.12.Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 12.05.2010and while ordering notice, interim stay was also granted. 13.The fourth respondent/Executive Officer of the PennadamTown Panchayat, filed a counter affidavit and also sought to vacatethe interim order. The fifth respondent/President of the PennadamTown Panchayat also filed a counter affidavit and he has filed anapplication to vacate the interim order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.Heard Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocateappearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learnedcounsel appearing for the fourth respondent andMr.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the fifthrespondent.15.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thepetitioner gave an application seeking permission to haveconstruction in his land on 21.10.2009. It is also admitted thatthe same was returned. Therefore, the petitioner made an appeal tothe first respondent on 26.11.2009 as the fourth respondentreturned his application. On 13.04.2010, the first respondentremanded the matter to the fourth respondent to decide the issue.Pursuant to the remand order, on 20.04.2010, the fourth respondentreturned the application citing certain defects. Again, thepetitioner represented the same immediately. It was again returnedon 23.04.2010 citing as many as 15 defects. Hence, admittedly therewas no permission from the fourth respondent to the petitioner tocommence construction work in the site.16.But the petitioner proceeded with construction work. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner himself admits that someconstruction was put up apart from the compound wall. It is soughtto be justified that the first respondent gave oral permission tocommence construction work. 17.According to him, the Council is the appropriateauthority to decide the matter, if the fourth respondent refused toact. Since the Council failed to pass an order based on hisapplication within a month under Section 202 of the Act, he isdeemed to have been granted permission to commence constructionwork.18.The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that theTamil Nadu District Municipalities Act do not provide fordemolition of construction, besides submitting that theconstruction was carried out based on oral permission. Accordingto the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 216 of the Actcontemplates only giving notice to the person, who put upunauthorized construction violating the rules, to remove the same.If the person fails to demolish the building pursuant to thenotice, the fourth respondent can have no power under Section 216of the Act to demolish the building. According to the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, there is no other provision in the Actempowering the fourth respondent to demolish an unauthorizedconstruction. According to him, at the most, the fourth respondentcould institute a criminal case and get the petitioner punishedunder Section 317 of the Act. Likewise, the fourth respondentcould impose fine under Sections 338 and 339 of the Act for notcarrying out the direction of the fourth respondent to demolish theunauthorized construction.19.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whenthe fourth respondent returned the application seeking permission https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to have construction by way of a notice dated 23.04.2010, thepetitioner resubmitted the same on 18.05.2010. The fourthrespondent did not choose to pass any orders on the petitioner'sapplication. Since the fourth respondent did not choose to passorders within 30 days as contemplated under Sections 200 and 201 ofthe Act, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.07.2010to the Pennadam Town Panchayat Council by registered post and thesame was received by the Council on 12.07.2010. As per Section 202of the Act, the Council has to pass an order within 30 days eithergranting or refusing permission to execute the work. If no orderis passed within 30 days, permission is deemed to have beengranted. In view of the deeming provision under Section 202 of theAct, according to the petitioner that the construction already putup by him is regularised.20.The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuouslycontends that in view of the ex-parte decree granted by the learnedDistrict Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, therespondents herein could not interfere with the petitioner'spossession. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on adecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (1) L.W. 304(Baldev Singh Vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others). The learnedcounsel also relies on another Judgment reported in 2008 (2) TLNJ653 (Civil) (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the DistrictCollector, Kamarajar District, Virudhunagar and another Vs.R.P.Patchirajan and another), in support of his plea that merelythe revenue records show that there is a pathway that is notsufficient to establish the existence of pathway.21.The learned counsel for petitioner submits that all thepolitical parties and various organizations are conducting a seriesof agitations against the petitioner, who is a sole person,interfering with the peaceful possession of his property contendingthat the petitioner encroached the pathway. His grievance is thatall the political parties and all the authorities are prejudicedagainst him. 22.On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for therespondents 4 and 5 submit that even the petitioner admits that heput up construction without obtaining permission. They have shownphotographs also in support of their plea that substantialconstruction work was done by the petitioner without permission.According to them, the petitioner has committed two illegalities.The first illegality is that he put up construction without gettingpermission from the competent authority under the Act i.e., withoutgetting permission from the fourth respondent, he startedcommencing construction work. The learned counsels also havebrought to my notice the admission made by the petitioner in theaffidavit itself and also the prayer in the writ petition, in thisregard. Therefore, according to them, the impugned order directingthe petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction is perfectlylegal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.The second illegality is that the petitioner hasencroached into a public path that has been used by the public forso many decades. It is stated that the lane is used by the publicto reach the old bus stand at Thittakudi and that the petitionerhas encroached on the lane. That is why, all the political partiesand various organizations and public are agitating against theencroachment made by the petitioner on the pathway. According tothe respondents 4 and 5, the land in S.No.353/15 is the pathway andthe land in S.No.577/7 is the drainage area. The petitioner hasencroached upon the public pathway in S.No.353/15 and also thedrainage area in S.No.577/7. The learned counsels have brought tomy notice that the pathway is on the western side of the land thatis purchased by the petitioner from one Mr.Selvaraj. According tothe learned counsels, in the very sale deed executed in favour ofthe petitioner, it is made clear that there exists a pathway on thewestern side of the land purchased. The petitioner could notencroach into the pathway. Since he had made encroachment, thefourth respondent being the competent authority to remove theencroachment under Section 182 of the Act, issued the impugnednotice. They have also brought to my notice Section 180 of the Actthat prohibits obstruction over the streets. The action of thepetitioner, according to the respondents 4 and 5, in encroachingover the public road and also putting up some construction resultedin a series of protests by the local public and variousorganizations. In fact, they have also brought to my notice thesuit filed by the public in O.S.No.54 of 2010 under order 1 Rule 8questioning the encroachment made by the petitioner over the publicroad. The plaint in the said suit is enclosed in the additionaltypeset of the petitioner. 24.The learned counsels appearing for the respondents 4 and5 vehemently contend that a person, who have put up illegal andunauthorized construction, could not say that deemed permission toproceed with the construction was granted under Section 202 of theAct. It is also argued that the subject matter of the writpetition is about the unauthorized construction. When the matteris seized by this Court and also when the petitioner had obtainedan interim order, the respondents did not want to pass any orderson the petitioner's application as otherwise it would beinterpreted as committing contempt of Court. 25.The learned counsels have also brought to my noticeSections 162 and 167 of the Act and the action of the petitioner isin contravention of those Sections. The learned counsels appearingfor the respondents 4 and 5 submit that the plea of the petitionerthat the Act nowhere provides power to the fourth respondent todemolish unauthorized construction, deserves to be rejected.According to them, Section 216 itself grants power to the fourthrespondent for demolition of unauthorized construction. Launchingof prosecution and charging of fine are in addition to the removalof unauthorized construction.26.The learned Government Advocate representing respondents1 to 3 submits that grant of oral permission for construction is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unheard of. She also points out that even according to the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is not thecompetent authority under the Act and therefore there is noquestion of the first respondent granting oral permission wouldarise.27.The learned Government Advocate submits that pursuant tothe application of the fourth respondent with prescribed fee tomeasure the public street in S.No.353/15 and also the drainageplace in S.No.577/7 in Pennadam made to the Assistant Director,Land Survey, the Assistant Director had surveyed the place and gavea report dated 18.05.2010. The learned Government Advocate hasalso produced before me the application dated 10.05.2010 made bythe fourth respondent and the report of the Assistant Director,Land Survey dated 18.05.2010. According to the report of theAssistant Director, Land Survey, the petitioner has encroached intothe public path and also the drainage place.28.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in replythat the survey was conducted behind his back and the same is thusnot binding on him.29.I have considered the submissions made on either side.30.Admittedly, the petitioner had put up substantialconstruction. While he approached this Court, there is an admissionin the affidavit itself in paragraph No.14, which reads asfollows:-"One portion was constructed on oral permission byfirst respondent considering the fluid situation at thesite since respondents 4 and 5 themselves have whipped upthe public against me deliberately."31.The prayer in the writ petition also makes it clear aboutthe unauthorized construction put up by the petitioner inS.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 measuring east-west 37 ½ feet andnorth-south 75 feet = 2812 ½ sq.ft. The learned counsels appearingfor the respondents 4 and 5 have shown various photographs andthose photographs make it clear that the petitioner madesubstantial construction. The petitioner had also put up compoundwall, apart from those constructions. He had also put up somepillars on the disputed pathway. In fact, as stated above, thelearned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that someconstruction was put up by the petitioner. But, he seeks tojustify the same that construction was put up based on the oralpermission from the first respondent. As rightly contended by thelearned counsel for the first respondent that the plea of the oralpermission from the first respondent for construction could deserveno acceptance. Likewise, I am not in agreement with the submissionof the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a deemingpermission under Section 202 of the Act, particularly when thematter is seized of by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32.In these circumstances, the issue is whether the fourthrespondent has power to demolish the unauthorized construction.According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has no powerunder the Act to demolish unauthorized construction. According tothe petitioner, Section 216 contemplates only issuance of noticedirecting the person, who put up unauthorized construction, toremove the same. If the person, who put up unauthorizedconstruction, failed to remove the same, the only option availableto the fourth respondent is to launch a criminal prosecution andalso to impose fine for not complying with his direction. This isthe crux of the submission made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner.33.Section 216 of the Tamil Nadu District MunicipalitiesAct, 1920 is extracted hereunder:-"216. Demolition or alteration of building workunlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.- (1) Ifthe [executive authority] is satisfied - "(i) that the construction or reconstruction of anybuilding [or well]-(a) has been commenced without obtaining thepermission of the [executive authority] or (where anappeal or reference has been made to the council) incontravention of any order passed by the council; or (b) is being carried on, or has been completedotherwise than in accordance with the plans orparticulars on which such permission or order was based;or(c) is being carried on, or has been completedin breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of anyrule or by-law made under this Act or of any directionor requisition lawfully given or made under this Act orsuch rules or by-laws, or(ii) that any alterations required by anynotice issued under Section 205 have not been duly made;or(iii) that any alteration of or addition toany building or any other work made or done for anypurpose, in, to or upon any building, has been commencedor is being carried on or has been completed in breachof section 215 ,he may make a provisional order requiring the owneror the builder to demolish the work done or so much ofit as, in the opinion of the [executive authority], hasbeen unlawfully executed or to make such alterations asmay in the opinion of the [executive authority] benecessary to bring the work into conformity with theAct, by-laws, rules, direction or requisition as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aforesaid, or with the plans and particulars on whichsuch permission or order was based, and may also directthat until the said order is complied with the owner orbuilder shall refrain from proceeding with the buildingor well.(2) The [executive authority] shall serve a copy ofthe provisional order made under sub-section (1) on theowner of the building or well together with a noticerequiring him to show cause within a reasonable time tobe named in such notice why the order should not beconfirmed.(3) If the owner fails to show cause to thesatisfaction of the [executive authority], the[executive authority may confirm the order with anymodification he may think fit to make, and such ordershall, then, be binding on the owner."34.I am not in agreement with the interpretation placed bythe learned counsel for the petitioner on Section 216 of the Act.Then, there is no purpose of having Section 216 of the Act itself.Section 216 of the Act contemplates that at the first instance, theconcerned person should be put on notice and he should be given anopportunity to remove the unauthorized construction. If the personrefuses to remove the unauthorized construction by himself, thefourth respondent, local authority has no option except to removethe unauthorized construction by taking suitable action.35.Sections 317, 338 and 339 of the said Act, which arerelevant, are extracted hereunder:-"317.Penalty for unlawful building.- If theconstruction or re-construction of any building orwell-(a) is commenced without the permission of the[executive authority], or (b) is carried on or completed otherwise than inaccordance with the particulars on which suchpermission was based, or(c) is carried on or completed in contravention ofany lawful order or in breach of any provisioncontained in this Act or in any rule or by-law madehereunder or of any direction or requisition lawfullygiven or made, orif any alterations or additions required by anynotice issued under Section 205 or Section 215 are notduly made, orif any person to whom a direction is given by the[executive authority] to alter or demolish a buildingor well under Section 216 fails to obey such direction,the owner of the building or well or the saidperson, as the case may be, shall be liable onconviction to a fine which may extend in the case of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ building to five hundred rupees and in the case of awell or hut to fifty rupees, and to a further finewhich may extend in the case of a building to onehundred rupees, and in the case of a well or hut to tenrupees, for each day during which the offence is provedto have continued after the first day.338. Consequences of failure to obtain licences,etc., or of breach of the same.- If, under this Act, orany rule, by-law or regulation made under it, thelicence or permission of the council or [executiveauthority] or registration in the municipal office isnecessary for the doing of any act, and if such act isdone without such licence or permission orregistration, or in a manner inconsistent with theterms of any such licence or permission, then -(a) the [executive authority] may, by notice,require the person so doing such act to alter, remove,or, as far as practicable, restore to its originalstate the whole or any part of any property, movable orimmovable, public or private, affected thereby, withina time to be specified in the notice and further,(b) if no penalty has been specially provided inthis Act for so doing such act, the person so doing itshall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to afine not exceeding fifty rupees for every such offence.339. Time for complying with order and power toenforce in default.- (1) Whenever by any notice,requisition, or order under this Act, or under anyrule, by-law or regulation made under it, any person isrequired to execute any work or to take any measures ordo anything a reasonable time shall be named in suchnotice, requisition or order within which the workshall be executed, the measures taken, or the thingdone.(2) If such notice, requisition, or order is notcomplied with within the time so named, the [executiveauthority] may cause such work to be executed or maytake any measures or do anything which may, in hisopinion, be necessary for giving due effect to thenotice, requisition or order as aforesaid; and further,(3) if no penalty has been specially provided inthis Act for failure to comply with such notice, thesaid person shall be liable on conviction before aMagistrate to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees forevery such offence."36.In my view, the actions provided, under Sections 317, 338and 339 of the Act, are apart from the demolition of unauthorized https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ construction under Section 216 of the Act. The petitioner is notcorrect in saying that the fourth respondent could only impose somefine and also initiate criminal prosecution that would result inpunishment under Section 317 of the Act. The fourth respondent haspower and jurisdiction under Section 216 of the Act to demolishunauthorized construction, besides taking action under Sections 338and 339 of the Act.37.The next issue is about the encroachment made by thepetitioner on the public path. According to the petitioner, he hasnot encroached into the public path. According to him, it is hisown land that was purchased in the year 2007 from one Mr.Selvaraj.But according to the respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner hadencroached into the public path in S.No.353/15 and in the drainageplace in S.No.577/7. It is a factual issue as to whether thepetitioner had encroached into the public path. The petitionerseeks to rely on the ex-parte decree in his favour for hisoccupation of the public path. In my view, the ex-parte decree isconfined to the land in S.No.353/1, 2, 5 and 12. The respondentshave no objection for occupation of the land by the petitioner inS.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 and their objection is about theoccupation of the public path. Hence, the respondents 4 and 5, hadmade a suggestion to leave the disputed place measuring 9 feet and75 feet temporarily as a vacant place for the use of public as thesame was used for a long time, pending decision of the Civil Suitfiled by the petitioner and he could put up construction in theremaining area. But the said suggestion was rejected by thepetitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner himselfadmits categorically that the public are using this portion of theland measuring 9 feet x 75 feet as a lane for reaching the busstand. The petitioner also admits that there is lot of protestfrom the public against his occupation of the lane. It is alsoadmitted by the petitioner himself that the public, variouspolitical parties and other organizations are conducting so manyprogrames against him for occupying the public path. 38.More over, the fourth respondent made an application tothe Assistant Director of Land Survey to find out whether thepetitioner encroached into public path S.No.315/15 and drainageplace in S.No.577/7 in Pennadam Town, by conducting survey of theland. It is stated in the application that law and order problemhas arisen due to the unauthorized occupation of pathway, survey ofthe pathway is necessary. The Assistant Director conducted surveyand submitted his report.39.I have perused the report of the Assistant Director. Theconcluding portion of the said report reads as follows:-"jhd; fpiuak; bgWk; nghJ jw;nghija rh;nt vz; mst[fs; kw;Wk;tp!;jpudj;ij rhpghh;j;J fpiuak; bgwhky; jdJ gj;jpu mst[fspd;go g[yr;Rtoapy;jpUj;jk; bra;tJ vd;gJ ,ayhj fhhpakhFk; vd;gija[k; jw;nghJ rh;nt vz; 353/15 d;bjd;g[wk; rh;nt vz; 353/14 d; bjw;nf fpHf;F gf;fk; xw;iw br';fy; Rth; K:yk; mjidbjhlh;e;J fpHf;F gf;fk; rpbkz;l; fyit gp;y;yh; K:yKk; rh;nt vz; 577/7 d; nkw;F https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gFjpapy; Rkhh; 6 mo cauKs;s br';fy; jLg;g[ Rth; kw;Wk; rh;nt vz; 577/1 d; bjw;Fkw;Wk; 577/8 d; tlf;F gFjpa[k; ,iza[k; fpHf;F gFjpapy; K:';fpy; gly; mikj;Jk;Mf;ukpg;g[ bra;Js;shh; vd;gija[k; jdf;F brhe;jkpy;yhj gFjpia Mf;fpukpj;Js;sgFjpapy; cs;s Mf;ukpg;ig mfw;wp re;J kw;Wk; rhf;fil fHpt[ vd gjpt[ bra;Js;sthWepiy epWj;jyhk; vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;."40.The report categorically states that the petitionerencroached into S.No.353/15 and S.No.577/7, both are public lands.If the petitioner encroached the public street, the fourthrespondent has power to remove the encroachment under Section 182of the Act.41.Section 182 of the said Act, is extracted hereunder:-"182. Removal of encroachments.- ( 1) The[executive authority] may, by notice, require the owneror occupier of any premises to remove or alter anyprojection, encroachment or obstruction (other than adoor, gate, bar or ground-floor window) situated againstor in front of such premises and in or over any street.(2) If the owner or occupier of the premises provesthat any such projection, encroachment or obstructionhas existed for a period sufficient under the law oflimitation to give any person a prescriptive titlethereto or that it was erected or made with thepermission or licence of any municipal authority dulyempowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any,for which the permission or licence is valid has notexpired, the municipal council shall make reasonablecompensation to every person who suffers damage by theremoval or alteration of the same." Likewise, the fourth respondent has power to prohibit theconstruction over the street, under Section 180 of the Act.42.Section 167 of the Act is also extracted hereunder:-167. Buildings not to be constructed within streetalignment or building line.- (1) No person shallconstruct any portion of any building within a streetalignment defined under Section 166.(2) No person shall erect or add to any buildingbetween a street alignment and a building line definedunder Section 166 except with [the] permission of the[executive authority] who may when granting [the]permission impose such conditions as the council may laydown for such cases."The action of the petitioner is also in contravention ofSection 167 of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

43.Since the Assistant Director of Town Survey found thatthe petitioner encroached into the S.No.353/15 and S.No.577/7, thefourth respondent is entitled to remove the encroachment byexercising his power under Section 182 of the Act and otherprovisions referred to above. 44.In these circumstances, the writ petition fails and thesame is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarjrlTo1.The Collector,Cuddalore District.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Vridhachalam.3.The Tahsildar,Thittakudi.4.The Executive Officer,Pennadam Town Panchayat,(Special Grade),Pennadam, Cuddalore District.+ 1 cc to Mrs. R. Meenal, Advocate SR.59321+ 1 cc to Mr.r. Neelakandan, Advocate SR.59310+ 2 ccs to Mr.R. Gururaj, Advocate SR.59301, 59559+ 1 cc to Mr.V. Raghavachari, Advocate SR.59503W.P.No.10416 of 2010 KJZ(CO)EU 13.09.2010.