AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—These two petitioners seek to have an order passed under the Land Encroachment Act quashed. The petitioners have
exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by tiling appeals and revisions. The ultimate order has been passed by the Government confirming
the orders passed by the lower authorities. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice was issued to the
petitioners under S. 7 of the Land Encroachments Act and all the proceedings are vitiated. According to the petitioners, none of the authorities has
considered the said aspect of the matter, in spite of a specific ground having been raised before every authority by the petitioners.
I am of the view that on the facts of this case, even if there was no notice under S. 7 of the Act, it would not vitiate or invalidate the proceedings.
The petitioners had sufficient opportunity before all the authorities to make out their case for resisting eviction under the provisions of the Act. The
petitioners have not placed any material before any of the authorities to show to as why they should not be evicted from the buildings. Admittedly
the land is natham poramboke and inspection of the site has been held by the Revenue Divisional Officer along with the Tahsildar. He had made
local enquiry and has found as a fact that the occupation of the petitioners was a great hindrance, to the users of the tank and also cattle of the
village, which come to drink water. The contention urged by the petitioners that they were houseless poor was found against on the facts of the
case and the petitioners did not raise any objection as against the eviction, which could be considered as sustainable.
More over in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have not chosen to disclose the year in which they came to occupy
the land in question. They merely state that they have been cultivating and residing in the land. The petitioners have not given any particulars as to
the number of years of their occupation. In these circumstances, I do not think that absence of notice under S. 7 of the Act, even if true, can vitiate
the proceedings. I do not find any merit in the case of the petitioners and hence these two writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.