Dr. Ambedkarr Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Abdul Hadi, J.—This writ petition by the 1st Petitioner-Sangam and 200 other individuals seeks a mandamus to forbear the Respondents from evicting the Petitioners from the land in question.

First of all, though the 1st Petitioner is a Sangam, it is not stated in the supporting affidavit sworn to by one Vasudevan, who claims to be the President of the said Sangam, that the said Sangam is a registered society. If it is not a registered society, or is not in any other way a legal personality, it cannot maintain the writ petition. Vide Sand Carrier''s Owner''s Union and others Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and others, . Though Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners other than the 1st Petitioner are members of the said sangam, it is also not so stated in the supporting affidavit. If that is so, it is also not known how the abovesaid Vasudevan, the deponent of the affidavit can represent the Petitioners other than the 1st Petitioner-Sangam. The affidavit in a writ petition must normally be that of the Petitioner.

Further, though the supporting affidavit, in paragraph 4 thereof, says that the Petitioners are in "possession of the abovesaid property till the date of filing the petition" and that they are having "B Memo" and "land documents" for the said property, it is not known what is meant by "B Memo" - no document at all has been filed showing the alleged possession of all Petitioners 2 to 201; there are only two documents, purporting to relate to Petitioner No. 201, Sigamani. Copies of those documents no doubt find a place in page Nos. 6 and 9 of the typed set. Copies of the documents appearing in pages 1 to 5, 7 and 8 of the typed set relate only to one Nandan, who is not one among the Petitioners 2 to 201. When W.M.P. No. 20352 of 1994 under Rule 2-B of Appendix IV of Appellate Side Rules came up before me earlier, I verified these facts and pointed out to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the abovesaid Nandan is not of the Petitioners. Then, the Learned Counsel said that he would take necessary steps to set right the matter. But, subsequently, it appears, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has corrected the cause title in the original petition, by adding one more Petitioner, giving out his name as "P. Nandan" and making him 202nd Petitioner in this writ petition. After finding this on 8.8.1994, I asked him whether he filed any petition for impleading the abovesaid Nandan, he said "No." But he states that he got the papers from the registry and included the abovesaid Nandan''s name in the cause title as 202nd Petitioner. This is certainly an unauthorised one and should be viewed very seriously. If he wanted to implead Nandan, he should have filed a petition for inpleading him, supported by an "affidavit. He did not do so. In the above circumstances, explanation also has been called from the registry as to how the counsel was allowed to make such an inclusion in the cause title of the writ petition without an order from this Court.

In view of the above reasons themselves this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should suffer dismissal. That apart, the affidavit in support of the writ petition though admits that the land in question is a poramboke land, it still maintains that the Petitioners are in "lawful possession" thereof and "no person has absolute right over this title of the property". The term "Lawful possession" is used throughout the affidavit. Even assuming the any of the Petitioners is in possession of the land in question, it cannot be lawful at all in the light of the other averments in the abovesaid affidavit. If really all the Petitioners are in "lawful possession" as alleged, and their possession is illegally disturbed by the Respondents, they could have also easily filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction pending the suit.

For all the abovesaid reasons, I see no justification to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.