The Madurai Union Club v. The District Collector

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 13.06.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYW.P.(MD).No.5524 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 The Madurai Union Club, Rep by its Secretary,S.Prabhu, No.9, Thamukkam Park Road, Madurai 20. : Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Gokhale Road, Madurai.

The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents from interfering with the peaceful possession andenjoyment of the petitioner of the land situate at S.F.No.512 to anextent of 63 cents, Thamukkam Road, Madurai, without following dueprocess of law or taking possession of the land in the guise ofremoval of encroachment. For Petitioner: Mr.B.SaravananFor Respondents: Mr.K.MahendranSpecial Government Pleader

O R D E R[Order of the Court was made BY K.SUGUNA, J]This Writ Petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamusforbearing the respondents from interfering with the peacefulpossession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the land situate atS.F.No.512 to an extent of 63 cents, Thamukkam Road, Madurai, withoutfollowing due process of law or taking possession of the land underthe guise of removal of encroachment.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a clubregistered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 andstarted in the year 1883 and license was also issued in favour of thepetitioner club for the purpose of setting up a Tennis Court and agarden. Initially, a sum of Re.1/- per year was fixed towards rentand the rent had also been periodically revised and the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2club had also raised objections for the same. Though initially, thepetitioner club was in possession and enjoyment of 98 cents, subsequently, a portion of the land to an extent of 35 cents wastaken over by the Government for the Government purpose and thepetitioner club had also handed over the same without any objection.3. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerclub is that when the petitioner club was in possession and enjoymentof the land in question, the said land was surveyed by the secondrespondent officials viz, the Chief Engineer, Public WorksDepartment, on 02.05.2011 and the petitioner club was also informedthat the respondents are going to start construction work in the saidland. On coming to know the same, the petitioner club has also maderepresentations to the respondents to stop their attempt to put upconstruction in the land in question. But, no reply was given. Consequently, the present Writ Petition is filed.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, evenassuming that the petitioner club is an encroacher of the said land, the respondents have to issue notice required under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, [hereinafter referred to as"the Act"] and Section 6 of the Act, and therefore, withoutfollowing due process of law, the respondents cannot evict thepetitioner club from the land in question.

On notice, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, the specific stand of the first respondent is that the landwas originally given on rental basis. However, after issuingproceedings under the relevant Act, the said land was handed over bythe Secretary of the petitioner club to the Revenue Department on07.09.2006. Subsequently, by the orders of the District Collector, Madurai, dated 01.08.2009, the said land was handed over to the TamilDevelopment Department on 14.08.2009 and from the said date onwards, the said land is in possession and enjoyment of the Tamil DevelopmentDepartment.

The first respondent in his counter affidavit has specificallydenied that the petitioner club is in possession and enjoyment of theland in question. As per the stand taken by the first respondent inthe counter affidavit, the Government has sanctioned a sum of Rs.50lakhs for the purpose of construction of Nan-madakoodal Arrangam andfor the said purpose, the land was handed over to the Public WorksDepartment Authorities and the work has also been commenced. Undersuch circumstances, the stand of the petitioner is totallyunsustainable. Apart from this, as per Paragraph No.6 of the counteraffidavit, more than crores of rupees is due from the petitionerclub, and therefore, the petitioner club is not entitled for therelief sought for.

We have considered the above submissions made by therespective learned counsel. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/