21 S.ABDUL SALAM 22 I.DANIEL RAJ 23 S.A.RAHMAN 24 K.S.SHAMSUDIN 25 R.KUMAR v. 5.Subba Reddy Charities rep. byManaging Trustee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.09.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P. No. 19179 of 2007&M.P. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2007 and M.P. No. 2 of 20081 M.C.ELUMALAI CHETTIAR 2 E.RAMESH 3 R.BANUMATHI 4 K.SELVAM 5 N.KRISHNAN 6 M.RAJU 7 S.AMUDHA SEKAR8 M.JAYAM9 N.FAZAL AHMED 10 M.ABBAS 11 M.K.HAJA12 E.ANBU 13 M.A.SYED MAZOOD 14 M.A.JINDA SYED UMMAR 15 M.A.SYED BADRUDHEEN 16 M.SALMABIVI 17 M.MOHIDEEN 18 Y.SHAHUL AMEED 19 P.USHA RANI20 P.M.U.MOHAMED ABDUL KAREEM 21 S.ABDUL SALAM 22 I.DANIEL RAJ 23 S.A.RAHMAN 24 K.S.SHAMSUDIN 25 R.KUMAR...Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs.

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.

The Tahsildar, Mambalam Guindy TalukChennai 600078.

Subba Reddy Charities rep. by Managing Trustee,A.J. Yuvaraj Reddy,395, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600016.(R5 impleaded as per order dt. 11.2.2008 in M.P. No.1/2008 in W.P. No. 19179/2007 by NPVJ)..RespondentsPrayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioners occupied in SF. No. 1/6 of Adyar Village of TambaramTaluk, Kancheepuram District without due process of law. For Petitioners::Mr.K. Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M. MuthappanFor Respondents::Mr.P. Muthukumar, GA for R1 to R4Mr.A.J. Yuvaraja Reddy (R5)Party-in-personO R D E RHeard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Advocate for the 5th respondent and Mr.Yuvaraj Reddy, appearing as party-in-person, who is the Managing Trustee of Subba ReddyCharities Trust, which was subsequently impleaded as a party to the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the property originally called “Mangulam Estate” out of which a part of itis situated in Adyar in S.No. 1/6 and another part in Velachery in R.S.No. 90. The petitioners, who are stated to be carrying on business in the area in iron scrap, wood scrap etc, have been in occupation of various portions for the past 30-40 years and the said business area is called as "Gandhi Market". According to the admitted facts, as could beseen from the affidavit, as per the revenue records, the said area is classified as Kulam porambloke. The petitioners' case is that since they have been in occupation for the past so many years and they have also got electricity supply and they have been making payment to the revenue authorities and during the year 1998, when there was a threat to evict them by treating them as encroachers, the petitioners along with others, formed an association called Gandhi Market Iron and Wood MerchantsSangam and approached this Court by filing W.P. No.

11377/98. In that case, the contention of the Revenue Department was that the area which the petitioners are occupying are water bodies and therefore, they should be treated as encroachers. It is in those circumstances that the writ petition came to be disposed of on 24.9.98 recording the assurance given by the Government Advocate that till due process of law is followed for evicting them, the demolition proceedings would be stopped. It is thereafter that the petitioners have approached the SpecialCommissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration by way of an appeal against the eviction proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar and treating them as encroachers and the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, by order dated 31.7.2002, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner association, directed the individual members of the association to approach the RevenueDivisional Officer, Chengulput by preferring an appeal under Section 10of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

In that order, the Commissioner has referred to the order of this Court in W.P. No.16515/2000 dated 27.9.2000 to hold that an association cannot make representation collectively when inidividual notices have been given and therefore, the individuals are at liberty to move the next forum for remedy. 3. It appears that thereafter, the individual members have filed appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengulput, who byorder dated 8.2.2004, while rejecting the appeals has referred to a Willstated to have been executed by A. Rangaiya Reddy 25.1.1922 stating that as per the said Will, the said A. Rangaiya Reddy is the owner of the property in question and by his Will, he has created a Trust. Havinggiven such a finding, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengulput has not chosen to give notice to the said Trust. However, he has chosen to makea remark that the owners of the property namely the said Trust should have approached the Land Tribunal to declare the lands as the pattalands belonging to the Trust since, as per the revenue records, the entire lands stand as Kulam poramboke.

In a writ petition filed against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said order of the Revenue Divisional officer in W.P. No. 5665 of2004 this Court, by its order dated 9.3.2004, while dismissing the said writ petition, held that if an adverse order is passed by the RevenueAuthorities, either on merits on on technicality, it is always open to the individual members to file an appeal to the appropriate authority. It appears that thereafter, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the District Collector, Kancheepuram under Section 10 of the Tamil NaduLand Encroachment Act, 1905 and the District Collector has transferred the said appeal to the District Revenue Officer based on which the District Revenue Officer namely, the 2nd respondent has issued notice to parties directing the parties to appear. It seems that the DistrictRevenue Officer has subsequently passed an order on 12.6.2007 without giving opportunity to the petitioners and other parties and that came tobe challenged by the petitioners in W.P. NO. 10542/2008 and this Courtwhile disposing of the writ petition by order dated 22.8.2008, taking into account that the order of the District Revenue Officer was passed without giving opportunity to parties, has set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the District Revenue Officer and the matteris now pending before the District Revenue Officer for further hearing.

It is also seen that in the meantime, the Revenue Divisional Officer, in his communication dated 13.7.2004 has requested the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, to forward a copy of the Will stated to have been executed on25.1.1922 by the original owner A. Rangaiya Reddy and at this stage, itis pending. 4. The 5th respondent, represented by its Managing Trustee, A.J.Yuvaraja Reddy, appearing as party in person, would submit that inasmuch as A.R. Rangaiya Reddy is the owner of the property based on the Willexecuted by him dated 25.1.1922 and a scheme decree has been framed by this Court in C.S. No. 180/48 by decree dated 15.1.1953 and thereafter, when dispute arose between the Trustees, there was a compromise decreein C.S. No. 247/62 on 6.7.65, the 5th respondent having inherited as aTrustee of the property form the original owner, has not been informed about any of these proceedings so far and it is due to the reason that the 5th respondent was away from India for some time and he was unable to collect materials and as soon as he returned to India, he has taken steps in filing various proceedings against the other Trustees, who according to him, have mismanaged the Trust.

It appears that he also filed a suit in C.S. No. 37/2007 against the present petitioners as well two other Trustees for certain reliefs including interim relief against the petitioners of claiming compensation of Rs.25,80,000/- and the said suit is pending on the file of this Court and admittedly, there is no interim order on the Original Side of this Court in respect thereof. While arguing, the 5th respondent would submit that in fact, the petitioners have admitted that the 5th respondent is the owner of the property and that at one of point of time, the petitioners have even agreed to pay rent to him. In such circumstances, on perusal of the records, it is seen that the question whether the writ petitioners should be continued in possession in the light of the categoric and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consistent finding by the Revenue Authorities that it is a kulamporamboke or after the eviction of the petitioners, the Trust has to resume possession or not are all issues which require not only appreciation of evidence but also application of mind on the part of the Revenue Authorities in the light of the records to be submitted by the parties concerned.5.

In view of the same, to meet the ends of justice, I am of the considered view that the District Revenue Officer has to be directed to complete the enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent Trust to facilitate the parties to produce various documents to decide the issue as to who has got right, title and ownership over the property and for the purpose of deciding as to whether the petitioners should be permitted to continue in possession.