The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another vs Rajamanickam and Others

M. Srinivasan, J.—The first respondent in each of these appeals challenged the validity of proceedings for acquisition of their lands by filing suits viz., O.S. Nos. 268 of 1986 and 369 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangaiman for declaration that the acquisition proceedings culminating in the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were illegal, void and unenforceable in law and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings. The suits were decreed by the District Munsif on 23.7.1987. In spite of having obtained a decree for declaration and injunction, these writ petitions were filed for issue of mandamus restraining the respondents therein from interfering in any manner with the right of the petitioners to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions without entertaining them in limine. However, he made some observations in the order that even if possession had been taken pursuant to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners shall be restored to possession and otherwise, serious consequences will follow. Aggrieved by the said observations, the Government has preferred these appeals.

In our opinion, once the writ petitions are dismissed as not entertainable, the learned Judge ought not to have made any observations such as found in the judgment. He might be stating the position in law. But, there should be no handle given to any litigant to take undue advantage of the proceedings which are wholly unwarranted in law. When once the first respondent in each of these appeals had obtained a decree in the court of the District Munsif, Valangaiman for declaration and injunction, it is for them to execute the said decree and take appropriate proceedings to prevent the defendants therein from interfering with their possession. Instead of doing so, they have chosen to file these writ petitions. It is not known how the writ petitions are maintainable at all. This Court cannot be used as a sort of executing court to implement the decrees passed by the District Munsif. The learned Judge should have simply dismissed the writ petitions directing the petitioners therein to approach the District Munsif for appropriate reliefs.

It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that appeals have been filed against the decrees. If that is so, it goes without saying that the result of the appeals will govern the rights of the parties, subject to further appeals or other proceedings therein.

It is made clear that whatever decision is rendered by the civil court ultimately, the parties thereto will be bound thereby and the decision of the civil court can be implemented by appropriate proceedings provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no question of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for such purposes.

With the above observations, the writ appeals arc ordered accordingly.