Chinnammal vs The District Revenue Officer

V.M. Velumani, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.B-5 R.P.3/2006 (22019)/2003, dated 23.05.2008, quash the same and further forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners'' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.F. No. 238/2, an extent of 40 cents at Melakaraikadu Village, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District, till the disposal of O.S. No. 136 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri.

According to the petitioners, the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the petitioners 2 to 5 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 255 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Musiri, for injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in S. Nos. 239/2, 236/1 and 238/4 in Melakaraikadu Village. The properties belong to Ayyampalayam Anna Chatram Trust at Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District and the petitioners are lessees. Respondents 3 and 4 gave a petition to the second respondent to remove the encroachment from S. No. 238/2, Melakaraikkadu Village, which is ''Vari'' viz., water body poramboke. According to the respondents 3 and 4, the land is a Government poramboke. The first petitioner''s husband and the first petitioner filed objections stating that a petition has been filed to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 255 of 2000 to include S. No. 238/2, to an extent of 40 cents also. Even though the said petition was dismissed, that has not attained finality. The second respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing, passed orders in favour of the respondents 3 and 4.

Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the first petitioner''s husband filed a revision before the first respondent. Pending revision, the first petitioner''s husband died and the legal heirs, viz., petitioners 2 to 5 were impleaded as parties in the revision. The first petitioner and her husband have filed O.S. No. 136 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri, for the relief of injunction restraining the District Collector, Trichy, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, the Tahsildar, Thottiam and the Deputy Tahsildar, Thottiam, from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land, measuring an extent of 40 cents in S. No. 238/2 at Melakaraikadu Village.

The first respondent without appreciating the petitioner''s case, confirmed the order of the second respondent on the ground that S. No. 238/2, is a water body poramboke. According to the petitioners, the first respondent has passed the impugned order without application of mind. When Civil Suits are pending, the second respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order.

Heard, Mr. K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A.S.Gopalamanikandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

The petitioners have filed two suits in O.S. No. 255 of 2000 and O.S. No. 136 of 2003. In O.S. No. 255 of 2000, the petitioners have prayed for injunction restraining the respondents and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S. Nos. 239/2, 236/1 and 238/4. The petitioners did not seek any relief in respect of S. No. 238/2 and only the petition was given to the first respondent to remove the encroachment in S. No. 238/2. The petitioners filed a petition to amend the plaint in O.S. No. 255 of 2000, to include S. No. 238/2. The said petition was dismissed holding that it introduces new cause of action. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 248 of 2003 filed by the first petitioner and his husband was also dismissed by this Court confirming the order of the District Munsif Court, Musiri. The first petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 15558 of 2003, challenging the notice issued by the second respondent, calling upon her to appear for enquiry on 10.03.2003. This Court, by order, dated 27.05.2003, dismissed the said writ petition. In the meanwhile, the second respondent passed an order in his proceedings in Mu.MU. No. 692/2003 (A4), dated 24.03.2003. The second respondent has rightly held that there was no suit pending in respect of S. No. 238/2 and the land in question is ''Vari'' viz., water body poramboke. Therefore, he has directed the Tahsildar, Thottiam, to remove all the encroachments as per law. As against which, the first petitioner and her husband filed a revision before the first respondent, on 08.05.2003.

After filing the revision before the first respondent, the first petitioner and her husband filed O.S. No. 136 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri. In the said suit, the petitioners prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and others from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of 40 cents of land in S. No. 238/2. In the plaint, they have stated that even though the said land with larger extent is recorded as ''Vari'' in the Revenue Records, the land is in fact in their possession and enjoyment for more than 30 years and the classification of ''Vari'' is extinguished.

From the averments made in the affidavit as well as in the plaint in O.S. No. 136/2003, it is seen that the land in S. No. 238/2 is a ''Vari'' i.e., water body poramboke. It is well settled that no body can be permitted to encroach any water body, steps must be taken to remove the encroachment so as to preserve water bodies. The second respondent, by his order, dated 24.03.2003, has directed the Tahsildar to remove the encroachment as per law. This order was confirmed by the first respondent, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. The petitioner do not claim title over the land in question and from the averments and the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is clear that the land in question is a water body. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent. There is no reasons or circumstances warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.