AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Jagadeesan, J.—The Petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the plot No. 61, the unused plot by putting up a car shed. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not the allottee of the site nor the owner of the site. Taking advantage of his allotment of door No. 19, Gangaiamman Koil Street, Tiruvanmiyar, Madras -41. Now, he has illegally occupied the disputed plot No. 61 by trespassing over the same. When the third Respondent has taken steps for the removal of such unauthorised superstructure in Plot. No. 61, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from taking any steps for the removal of the superstructure and also forbearing them from disturbing the Petitioner''s peaceful possession.
When the Petitioner is admittedly in illegal possession as a trespasser, I am at a loss to know as to how his possession can be protected under law. In fact, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only to protect any legal right of the individual as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Timchirappalli Palporual Virkum Thozhilalargal Sangam v. Commissioner, Corporation of Trichy 1998 II CTC 610. The action of the Petitioner in putting up the superstructure by trespassing in Plot No. 61 would definitely label him as a wrong doer. Such persons are also not entitled for any protection before this Court as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sekhar v. Malligarjuna Rao 2000 III MLJ 123. On the above principles, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
However, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the site belongs to the Slum Clearance Board and the Slum Clearance Board had written a letter stating that the unauthorised occupation of the Petitioner will be regularised. Hence, the third Respondent herein has no authority to take eviction proceedings.
I am unable to agree with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The acquisition of the lands on behalf of the Slum Clearance Board is being done only to benefit the group of individuals, who do not have any shelter. The acquisition by the Slum Clearance Board is not to provide the plot for the individual to have the car shed. If that is so, it is totally against the principles of allotment as contemplated by the Slum Clearance Board. Hence, the authorities of the Slum Clearance Board have no business to regularise the unauthorised occupation of the Petitioner.
When the property in dispute is a public property and some one had trespassed into the same, it is the duty of the officials, irrespective of the department to which they belong, to initiate the eviction proceedings against such trespassers in order to protect the public property of the State. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the third Respondent in taking action in removing the encroachment made by the Petitioner herein. As already held, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Consequently, the above W.M.P. is also dismissed.