M/s. Gas Links, A partnership firm, Rep. by its Managing Partnership Y. Syed Chanth Basha v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order passed by a learned single Judgeof this Court in W.P. No.33039 of 2005 dated 24.4.2006.petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus forbearingthe respondents their men or agents in any wayinterfering with possession and enjoyment of the LPGgodown of the petitioner by way of demolition orotherwise situate at S.NO.205/2A Koyambedu Village (knownas 23/3 Kumaran Nagar, Koyambedu and plot No.9 and 10,Kumaran Nagar I Main Road, Chinmaya Nagar, Chennai-107.For Appellants : Mr. G. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr. M.L. GaneshFor Respondents-1, 2 & 5: Mr. M. Dhandapani Spl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent-3 : Mr. D. Veerasekaran For Respondent-4 : Mr. G.T. Subramaniam For Respondent-6 : Mr. N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel for Mr. L.G. SahadevanJ U D G M E N TPrabha Sridevan, J.The appellant alleged that his L.P.G. Godown was beingdemolished by the respondents without resorting to due process oflaw and prayed for a mandamus to restrain them from doing so. Thelearned single Judge directed the Commissioner, Land Administrationto pass appropriate orders regarding the question whetherencroachment had been committed by the appellant or by the sixthrespondent. So, aggrieved by this order, the present appeal hasbeen filed. It is a matter of fact that in two earlier writpetitions relating to the same issue of encroachment, theauthorities had categorically stated there is no encroachment.2. The litigation has a long history and there have beenearlier proceedings before this Court. On 27.12.1989, theGovernment, by G.O. Ms. No.1632, allotted land measuring 827sq.mts. in Survey No.2057/2A of Koyambedu Village to the appellantherein. The terms and conditions as well as the cost of the landwas not fixed at that point of time. The appellant was informedthatt he orders relating to this will be issued separately. In1991/1992, when the appellant approached the Chennai MetropolitanDevelopment Authority and the Corporation of Chennai for approvalof his building plan, the Corporation sanctioned the plan by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings dated 22.6.1992. Though the land allotted by theGovernment was aboutg 810 sq.mts., the appellant put up theconstructions only in an extent of 600 sq.mts. in order to maintainsafety distance as per the provisions of the Explosives Act. Inthe year 1993, Writ Petition No.4496 of 1993 was filed by thepredecessor-in-interest of the sixth respondent for a direction tothe authorities to prevent encroachment by the appellant on theroad and to restore the road. The Corporation of Chennai and theC.M.D.A. were respondents in that writ petition. It was disposedof with certain directions. Subsequently in the year 1998, WritPetition No.5901 of 1998 was filed alleging that the appellant hasencroached upon the road in the layout and for a direction to theauthorities to remove such encroachment. The appellant was thesixth respondent in the latter writ petition. The Corporation ofChennai and C.M.D.A. were the other respondents therein. The saidwrit petition was dismissed on 12.7.2000 by the Division Bench withliberty to the petitioner therein to file a civil suit, ifnecessary, under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The case of the appellant is that in the year 2005, theDeputy Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk came to their godownalleging encroachment by the appellant. The appellant gave adetailed representation. Notwithstanding the same, on 14.10.2005,it is alleged that officials threatened demolition of theencroachment and therefore, the present writ petition was filed.The parties to the writ petition are, in addition to the variousauthorities, the sixth respondent, who was the fourth petitioner inW.P. No.5901 of 2008.4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the second, fourthand sixth respondents. According to the respondents, though theallotment was made, the localisation of the property was not doneand the appellant himself had occupied the space and it is thusthat there was encroachment.5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, itwas pointed out by the learned senior counsel Mr. G. Rajagopalappearing for the appellant that prevaricating stands have beentaken by the officials of the respondents regarding the fact ofencroachment. Therefore, we passed an order on 27.7.2009 directingthe officials to make a field measurement study of the entireKumaran Nagar with the assistance of a Field Surveyor. The saidorder reads as follows :-"It is a matter of dismay that all the authorities,who may be involved in the dispute of this nature, takevarying stands regarding the same matter and the picturethat is presented to the Court is not a clear one and weare unable to see whose records or files must beaccepted. We request the learned Advocate General to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ take it up with the Member Secretary, ChennaiMetropolitan Development Authority, the Collector,Chennai and the Commissioner, Chennai City MunicipalCorporation to act in co-ordination so that such lapsesdo not occur and this co-ordination should be undertakeneven with regard to the matters pending where there aredisputes and must be positively done in future. Thiswill also ensure that there are no irregularconstruction."Thereafter, on 14.9.2009, after perusing the interim report filedby the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, taking note of hisobservations that the assistance of the Directorate of Urban LandTax and Urban Land Ceiling was required in the matter, we issuedthe following directions :-"The Department of Urban Land Tax and Urban LandCeiling, Chepauk, Chennai-5 shall extend co-operationwith specific attention to Item No.1 listed above.To ensure the prompt assistance, Registry isdirected to send a copy of this order to the followingofficers –1. Commissioner for Urban Land Tax and UrbanLand Ceiling, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 and2. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax,Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029."6. Originally, we had indicated that once the report is filedindicating the extent of encroachment, we would pass orders inaccordance with the report that is filed. Now, the report and themap has been filed and the learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant has made his submissions on the report, as to why itcannot be accepted. On the other hand, learned senior counselappearing for the sixth respondent Mr. N.R. Chandran would submitthat it is hardly relevant that the officers had takenprevaricating stands earlier. What is relevant and what is theonly factor which should be taken into account is the present planand report which shows that it is the appellant who is guilty ofencroachment. According to the learned senior counsel, the Actrequires the removal of encroachment and referred to a Full Benchjudgment in T. Ramaraju vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2)C.T.C. 741. Learned senior counsel also submitted that withoutdoubt, earlier the Division Bench had given liberty to file a civilsuit, but it is not necessary to do so if in fact there isencroachment of the road and the public has the right to move apublic interest litigation.7. We will now examine all the records. On 27.12.1989, asalready stated, the appellant was allotted 827 sq.mts. of land inSurvey No.2057/2A of Koyambedu Village by the Government. This was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ done on the basis of the recommendation of the Allotment Committeeconstituted by the Government. The Government accepted therecommendation of the Committee and directed that the appellantshall be "permitted to enter upon the land" abiding by the termsand conditions which will be communicated separately. On 2.6.1992,the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk addressed a letter to theAssistant Executive Engineer (South), Corporation of Madras to theeffect that the appellant had requested the office to issue a NoObjection Certificate for issuing a building plan and in thisletter, reference is made to the above Government Order and it isstated, "Since the Government have already permitted M/s. Gas Linksto enter upon the land for immediate use, there is no objection forissuing the building plan in favour of M/s. Gas Links". The xeroxcopy of this letter is produced along with the xerox copy of thelayout plan at that time, which showed that it was called the'Chinmaya Nagar Stage Second Extension'. By this letter, theVillage Administrative Officer was directed to make necessarypencil entries in the Adangal regarding this. This document isfiled as Additional Typed Set 'C'. 8. As counter to W.P. No.5901 of 1998, the Senior Planner,C.M.D.A., who was the third respondent therein, has stated that 827sq.mts. of land in the aforesaid survey number was allotted to theappellant and has referred to the Government Order mentioned above.It is also stated that entry permission was granted by the DeputySecretary by his Letter No.16864/89/3-2 dated 6.10.1989. The FireService Department had issued No Objection Certificate in LetterNo.11823/E1/90 dated 17.8.1990 for storing 8000 LPG Cylinders. Theappellant applied for planning permission. By the letter inL.N.D.C. No.D5/PPA.5674/90 dated 4.2.1991, the Corporation ofChennai informed the C.M.D.A. that the original sanctioned layoutdiffered from the copy of layout produced by the appellant and thatsome error had taken place in development of the Kumaran NagarLayout. It was also stated that the Commissioner, Corporation ofChennai had informed that on an inspection, it was found that thecontinuation of the existing road at Kumaran Nagar fell within theland allotted to the appellant. The counter also referred to theletter dated 20.2.1992 by which the appellant was permitted toenter upon the land allotted to him. 9. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.5901 of 1998, theChennai Metropolitan Development Authority stated that pursuant tothe orders of this Court, a joint inspection was made twice by theofficials of the Corporation of Chennai, once on 24.9.1999 and onanother occasion on 17.4.2000 and they found that "prima facie,there was no encroachment" and therefore, the C.M.D.A. prayed thatthe writ petition filed against the appellant should be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai also filed acounter in W.P. No.5901 of 1998, it is stated therein that thisproperty formed part of the approved layout in Kumaran Nagar.According to the counter, the appellant had paid the developmentcharges which is mandatory and a road was laid upto the house ofthe first petitioner therein and all other amenities were alsoprovided. It is repeated that this sixth respondent was the fourthpetitioner therein. In this counter, it is also stated that theland in question connected the Kumaran Nagar Layout and ChinmayaNagar Stage Second Extension in Survey No.205/2. The counter alsorefers to the sanctioned plan for the construction of the godownand in specific, it states, "The land was duly surveyed by theRevenue officials of the Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk Office. As perthe sanctioned plan, there is no road in between Chinmaya NagarStage Second Extension and Kumaran Nagar Layout." This counterfurther refers to W.P. No.4496 of 1993 and to the joint inspectionconducted on 24.9.1999. It is seen that though the Kumaran NagarLayout provided only for 100 plots, 116 plots had been put up. Thecounter also shows that the petitioner in W.P. No.4496 of 1993 didnot respond to the communication of the Corporation of Chennai withregard to this violation. The petitioner in W.P. No.4496 of 1993is the predecessor-in-interest of the sixth respondent herein. Itis categorically stated that, "the construction of the godown wasduly sanctioned by the C.M.D.A. and the Corporation of Chennai onthe lease land issued by the authorities under the Urban LandCeiling Act. The said land was not an encroachment." It is alsostated that when W.P. No.4496 of 1993 was filed, an opportunity wasgiven to those persons attacking the appellant to prove that theland in question is an encroachment, but without doing that, asecond writ petition, viz. W.P. No.5901 of 1998 was filed.Whatever the facts may be, at that stage, the authorities concernedwere clearly of the opinion and had stated that there was noencroachment by the appellant.11. In the year 2005, the appellant wrote to the Tahsildar,Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk that though in the original sitecondition, 827 sq.mts. were allotted, that was not available;instead, the opposite side plots have encroached in front of hisland. The appellant had enclosed copies of all the plans, sketchesand documents and had complained that the encroachers were on andoff troubling the appellant with their complaints that the road wasnot allowed to be extended, while they were the ones who weresquatting on the road by comfortably raising compound walls andwere accusing the appellant of having encroached the road, which ishighly incorrect, false and frivolous. It is then that the presentwrit petition came to be filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. In the present writ petition, the fourth respondent, whois the Commissioner of the Corporation of Chennai has stated thatthe appellant has encroached the road portion. There is noreference to the earlier litigation. Directions had been given tothe Taluk Tahsildar to take suitable action to remove theencroachment. The second second respondent, who is the Collectorof Chennai, had stated that though the Government permitted theappellant to enter upon the land in question, the appellant himselfhad entered upon the land without actually knowing the exactlocation of the site allotted to him. It was stated that no formalhanding over possession of the land was made to the appellant andthe appellant did not bother to obtain possession of the landthrough transfer of charge certificate together with a locationsketch showing the actual area allotted to him as per the saidGovernment Order. It is in these circumstances that the abovedirections were issued for surveying the location.13. Now, a plan has been filed according to which theappellant has encroached upon the road and accompanying the map, areport has also been filed. According to this report, theappellant was permitted to enter upon the land by G.O. Ms. No.1632.Though it should be a report on what was surveyed, actually theofficials have incorporated some parts of the counter as well. Itis stated in the report as follows :-"13. In the year 1992, the Chennai MetropolitanDevelopment Authority has approved the building plan forS.No.205/2A/2 in Block No.67 of Koyambedu Villageoccupied by M/s. Gas Links without any plot No. and roadportion or approach road for entrance and shown 20 feetlength as utility area of applicant by showing thenorthern side house as encroached area as if buildingplan was sanctioned already in the year 2985 itself bythe same Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Thepetitioner is using the utility area shown in the plan asroad in the initial stage as the Kumaran Nagar Layout wasimproved by constructions afterwards only. Subsequently,after formation of houses, the road was shrunked into 40feet to 33 feet towards western side (i.e., uptoallottees land) and allottee has encroached the roadportion by 196 sq.mt. (i.e., 2109 sq.ft.) leaving 7 feetas road in the northern side. As per the FMB sketch andold records received from the ULT and ULC Department arealso shown that there is a road towards northern side ofOld S.No.205 (sketch enclosed) and southern side of OldS.No.118 of the Koyambedu Village, i.e., in the year1985. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. As per the state on ground position andpossession and with available records, during Town Surveyin the year 1987, it was noticed that an extent of 196sq.mt. or 2109 sq.ft. was encroached by M/s. Gas Links.At the time of Town Survey, the encroached portion byM/s. Gas Links has been assigned a separate T.S. No.123comprised in Bk. No.67 which is classified as SarcarPoramboke under the usage of Road maintained byCorporation of Chennai and the Corporation of Chennainamed the street as I Main Road, Kumaran Nagar andremaining portions in S.No.205 treated as Ryotwari Manai.As such, the street named as Kumaran Nagar I Main Road ismaintained by the Corporation of Chennai and theownership of the land in T.S. No.123 vests withCorporation of Chennai according to the notified surveyrecord of Survey Department and this office records whichis a basic record in regard to the land maintenance byRevenue Department."In the final paragraph, it is stated as follows :-"... it is submitted that M/s. Gas Links hasencroached a portion of 196 sq.mt. (i.e., 2109 sq.ft.) inS.No.123 which is classified as Sarkar Poramboke (Road)as the land in question, i.e., 827 sq.mt. in Old SurveyNo.205/2 of Kumaran Nagar village was not earmarked andhanded over properly by the department concerned ...". Therefore, according to the report, the encroachment is complete.14. We have gone through the report, perused the photographsand heard the submissions on both sides. The map filed by theauthorities indicates as if the road, which goes to the north ofthe building belonging to the appellant which narrows at the pointwhere the appellant's compound wall and the house of the sixthrespondent are the closest to each other, continues thereafter.That is what the map indicates. But the photographs show thatactually there is nothing to the west of the appellant's compoundwall and in fact, the photographs produced show that there is awall in the narrow strip of land between the appellant's propertyand the sixth respondent's property and there are potted plantsplaced on top of the wall. The learned Special Government Pleadersubmits that actually there is no road to the west of this pointand it is all occupied. Perhaps, originally it was intended to bea road. But when we asked the officials to help us by drawing up amap, we expect them to state what is actually existing in reality,regardless of the fact whether it was originally a road or not. Infact, we find that in the counter filed by the Commissioner,Corporation of Chennai in the earlier litigation, he had averredthat the road was laid upto the house of the petitioner therein, to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which group the sixth respondent belongs. Perhaps, when theallotment was originally made, the appellant herein, on receipt ofthe letter permitting him to enter upon the land, entered upon whathe believed to be his survey number. But thereafter, many yearshave passed and there are several letters and communications withthe authorities where they confirmed his possession. Not onlythat, no objection is given to his application for a sanctionedplan. 15. We also noted with dismay the total lack of co-ordinationbetween the three authorities who have a role to play in thedevelopment of the city. This lack of co-ordination has resultedin the urban chaos that we see around us. We cannot ignore thedecision of the Full Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras HighCourt in 2005 (2) C.T.C. 741 (supra) which deals with roadencroachments and it is not possible for us to condone anyencroachment. There are many cases where encroachments have been along standing one and suddenly the authorities wake up to theencroachment and move in with a high handed approach. But in thiscase, there has been continuous litigation almost from the time theappellant was allotted the land and all along, the stand of theauthorities before this Court was that there was no encroachment.And now, a report is filed annexing a map which gives theimpression that a road proceeds from east to west beyond theappellant's property, which is not correct. If we proceed toexplore how the appellant in fact occupied and took possession ofthe land, we would be entering into areas which require recordingof evidence. When we requested the authorities concerned to take asurvey of the area, we thought it would clarify matters. Instead,we are unable to accept the map which is not factually correct andit is totally contrary to the consistent stand of the authoritiesin the earlier litigation. It is the same issue which had beenraised in the earlier litigation and it was withdrawn only withliberty to file a civil suit.16. As a legal proposition, the learned senior counsel for theappellant may be right in contending that when there is anencroachment on a public road, it is not necessary for theappellant to file a suit. But this case is fraught withdifficulties. There are disputed questions on every aspect,including something as simple as whether there is a road whichproceeds from east to west beyond the appellant's property. Theappellant, in fact, is occupying less land than what has beenallotted to him. That is admitted even by the authoritiesthemselves. Though he was allotted 827 sq.mts. of land, he is nowoccupying only 600 sq.mts. 200 sq.mts. of land was left by himbeyond his compound gate towards the utility land and we do notknow in whose possession it is now. If there is crowding ofconstructions near the appellant's building, it is not the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant's own fault, because admittedly where there should be 100plots, now 116 plots have come up. The haphazard urbandevelopment, the blatant violation by all parties concerned of thebuilding regulations, the erratic approach to zoning have allresulted in the mess that is now called Chennai. We even exploredthe possibility of the appellant shrinking his compound wall closerto the godown so that the width of the road may be increased. Butthe learned senior counsel submits that the statutory requirementswith regard to storing of explosive materials will not permit that. 17. In 2005 (2) C.T.C. 741 (supra), a Full Bench of theMadurai Bench of the Madras High Court took up the order ofreference by virtue of the observation made in 2005 (2) C.T.C. 249[The Madurai Maanagar Old Motor Spare Parts Dealers' Associationvs. Madurai City Municipal Corporation] and the guidelines laiddown for removal of encroachments are set out in paragraph 38 ofthe said judgment and it reads as follows :-"(1) If the encroachment is on road or road margins,vested in Municipalities, the removal if any is to beeffected only after following the procedure contemplatedin Chapter IX of the Tamil Nadu District MunicipalitiesAct and more particularly the provisions contained inSection 182 and Section 183(6). Before taking actionunder Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act,notice in writing giving atleast two weeks time should beserved and, if the person avoids to receive the notice,such notice can be effect by affixture. However, noticeby any other means, such as through public announcementor beating of drums or by general notice in newspapers,may not be sufficient.(2) The decision in W.P. No.689 of 2005 cannot beconstrued as having abrogated the statutory power of theCouncil under Sections 182 and 183. The Council maygrant licence to put up verandas, balconies, sunshades,weather-frames and the like. Similarly, the Council haspower to lease road sides and street margins foroccupation on such terms and conditions and for suchperiod as the Council may fix. However, such power underSections 183(1) and 183(3) should be exercised keeping inview the provisions contained in Section 183(4) and nosuch licence under Section 183(1) or lease under Section183(3) should be granted if the projection, constructionor occupation is likely to be injuries to health or causepublic inconvenience or otherwise materially interferewith the use of the road as such. Any projection orconstruction put up under Section 183(1) or (2) can beremoved on expiry of the licence or the lease, as thecase may be. Compensation is required to be paid inmatters coming within the scope of 182(2). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3) Payment of property tax, provisions of waterconnection or electricity by themselves cannot beconstrued as conferring any independent right, if theencroachment is otherwise unauthorised.(4) The above directions and observations are alsoapplicable to encroachment in respect of road or roadmargins coming within the jurisdiction of MunicipalCorporations or Town and Village Panchayats, in whichevent, necessary action can be taken by the concernedauthorities by following the relevant provisions of lawapplicable to such Corporations or Panchayats.(5) To the extent the National Highways Act, 1956and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic)Act, 2002 are applicable, action can be taken only byfollowing the procedure prescribed under such statutes.Similarly, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,2001, are applicable to the Roads coming under the StateAct.(6) If the encroachment is on the land belonging tothe Local Authorities, but such land is not part of theroad or road margin or roadside land, eviction can beeffected by following the procedure contemplated in law,namely, either by taking recourse to the Tamil NaduPublic Premises (Eviction or Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1975 or any other law applicable or otherwise by takingrecourse to Civil Courts and not by use of unilateralforce.(7) So far as the encroachment on the land belongingto the Government is concerned, action for eviction ifany can be taken only by the appropriate authority and byfollowing the procedure contemplated under the Tamil NaduLand Encroachment Act, 1905.(8) The directions issued in W.P. No.689 of 2005 areapplicable to removal of encroachments on roads and roadmargins and not other lands belonging to the LocalAuthorities or the State. The said decision should notbe construed as giving a licence to the Local Authoritiesto cancel the existing license or lease or to remove theencroachments without following the procedurecontemplated under the law.(9) If any Civil Courts decree or interim order isholding the field, obviously, no action can be taken,unless and until such a decree or interim order is setaside or vacated in a manner known to law."18. If there is a road encroachment, without doubt, it has tobe removed. In fact, the reason why we gave directions for makinga field measurement study of the entire Kumaran Nagar Layout wasbecause we were informed that the road proceeding from east to west https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from Ayyappa Nagar Approved Layout through Kumaran Nagar continuedbeyond the property occupied by the appellant, reaching NerkundramRoad, but as stated by us already, the photographs shown and thefactual statement by the learned Special Government Pleader is thatbeyond the appellant's property, the road does not extend and wehave already described that there is only a wall running north tosouth with even potted plants on top of it, which means there is nothrough access from east to west, i.e., there is no thoroughfare.If we had known this earlier, we would not have required the fieldmeasurement study to be undertaken in view of the repeatedcategoric statements by the authorities that there was noencroachment. But, however, this has been done and for the reasonthat the map does not show that the road ends at the spot where theappellant's property is situated, we are not placing much relianceon the map for the purpose of issuing the directions in this writappeal :(a) The guidelines in the Full Bench judgment referredto above are clear. But the authorities cannot proceedarbitrarily against the appellant alleging that it isencroachment in view of the stand taken earlier.(b) In W.P. No.4496 of 1993, the stand of therespondents was that a joint inspection was conductedon 24.9.1999 and the construction of the godown wasduly sanctioned by CMDA on the lease land issued by theauthorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and thesaid land was not an encroachment. Therefore, theirstand in 1993 is that the construction is on the leasedland. At that time, an opportunity was given to thepredecessors-in-interest of the sixth respondent toprove that the land in question is an encroachment.They did not do so. Therefore, strictly speaking, thematter should have rested there.(c) But the matter does not rest there. They filedW.P. No.5901 of 1998. In this writ petition again, thecounter affidavit filed refers to the joint inspectiondated 24.9.1999 and again on 17.4.2000 and it was foundprima facie that there was no encroachment. TheCommissioner, Corporation of Chennai also stated thatthe appellant had paid the development charges andcrucially it is stated in the counter filed in W.P.No.5901 of 1998 that the road was laid upto the houseof the opposing parties. In view of the disputedquestions, the Division Bench rightly directed theparties to file a civil suit. But still, the matterdoes not rest there.(d) It is clear that it is only at the instance of thesixth respondent that action was initiated by the otherrespondents against the appellant. In fact, thelearned senior counsel for the sixth respondent, while https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ making his submissions that when there is anencroachment on public road, it is not necessary forthe aggrieved party to file a civil suit, he can move apublic interest litigation, tacitly acknowledged thatthis litigation had also arisen at their instance. Itis now for the first time that the authorities say thatthere is an encroachment.(e) Though it is now stated that the appellant'sproperty is on an encroached land, it is not denied andin fact it is admitted that in Kumaran Nagar, wherethere should be 100 plots, 116 plots have been put up.The authorities have not taken any action against thisarbitrary increase of the plots in question.(f) We have also already expressed our displeasurethat the authorities concerned do not have a co-ordinated approach. We were informed by the learnedAdvocate General that he has, in fact, discussed thismatter with the Member Secretary, CMDA, the DistrictCollector, Chennai and the Commissioner, Corporation ofChennai to ensure that such lapses do not recur. Weappreciate this approach.(g)It is admitted that there are constructions to thewest of the compound wall of the appellant. So, thepresent map which gives the impression that the roadnarrows near the appellant's property and proceedsfurther is incorrect and is, therefore, rejected.(h) Even though the jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution is not confined by the fetters of theCivil Procedure Code, yet there must be some finalityto litigation. The appellant has been asked to showthat there is no encroachment not once, but twice, butthrice. Twice he was lucky, but he was not lucky thethird time. The same issues cannot be raked up overand over again. This is a matter of public policy. 19. For all these reasons, the writ appeal stands disposed of.We wanted to impose heavy costs on the sixth respondent for abusingthe process of law, and on the authorities for the conflictingstands that they have taken. But we do not do so, only because wewish that the matter should stop here. The sixth respondent hasattempted again and again to rake up the same issue. It iscondemned. The authorities should be conscious that what they fileinto Court should reflect the true state of affairs and should bebased on records. Then the averments in the pleadings will notvary. Courts rely on the statements of the authorities and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ records, especially in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution. We impose no costs. Consequently, theconnected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.abTo1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The District Collector, Chennai,Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.3.The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,Egmore, 4. The Commissioner. Chennai City Municipal Corporation,Ripon Building, Chennai-3,5.The Tahsildar,Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk,Egmore, Chennai.1 cc to Mr.D. Veerasekaran, Advocate, SR. 611911 cc to Mr.M.L. Ganesh, Advocate, SR. 612922 ccs to Mr.L.G. Sahadevan, Advocate, Sr. 612761 cc to Mr.A. Mohamed Ghouse, Advocate, Sr. 614291 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 61338Writ Appeal No.908 of 2006PVR (CO)kk 24/11