AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner, a Private Limited Company filed a writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents from
interfering with the petitioner''s possession and enjoyment of 17.75 acres of land comprised in R.S. No. 404/2, 406/2, 407/2 and 515 of
Kulasesharapuram Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyarkumari District.
The petitioner Company is manufacturing Tobacco. The lands were given by the Government for cultivation of Tobacco. But, the Company did
not grow tobacco on the plea it was by pests. But on the other hand, planted several trees in the land.
The District Collector, Kanyakumari District issued a notice 21-12-1972 for evicting the Company from the lease hold land. The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswaram Taluk issued a notice for surrender possession of land. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 2998 of 1973 before this
Court. This Court held that the petitioner can be evicted only by due process of law and since they have some protection u/s 5 of the Travancore-
Cochin Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1956, the State will have to evict the petitioner only by filing an appropriate civil suit.
Pursuant to the said direction given by this Court on 11-10-1977, the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Kanyakumari
District filed a suit before Sub-Judge, Nagercoil in O.S. No. 39 of 1980 for recovery of possession of the scheduled property including recovery
of Rs. 45,000/- being a ''mesne'' profits from the land. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by judgment dated 10-03-1983.
However, the State filed an appeal before this Court in A.S. No. 594 of 1985. The said appeal came to be allowed by a judgment and decree
dated 25-07-2001.
By virtue of the said decree, the petitioner/Company ought to have surrendered their possession. But, on the contrary, there was some internal
change of the Directors of the Company and Form No. 32 was filed before the Registrar of Companies. Directors of the Company were trying to
the transfer in the interest of the land of the Company to some other persons by this devious process.
Anyhow, the Village Administrative Officer filed a criminal complaint before the Anjugramam police station, Kanyakumari District and an FIR
was also registered against the Company. The allegation against the Company was that pursuant to the decree, the Government has taken the
possession of the land and the gate was locked. It was under the custody of the State. A Notice Board was also put up stating that any person
entering the said land will be doing so at their own risks and it will amount to criminal tresspass. Since, the petitioner was trying to enter the land
and attempting to cultivate the land, the criminal case was filed by the Government. It is stated that the petitioner Company had filed a petition for
quashing the FIR.
In the meanwhile, the legal notice was issued against the State by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, the present writ petition
has been filed. Pending the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 25-10-2005 ordered Status-Quo till 28-10-2005. Subsequently, the limited
order was extended until further orders by an order dated 14-12-2005. Pursuant to the notice given by this Court, two counter affidavits were
filed by the first respondent dated 18-04-2007 and 11-11-2005. The petitioner had also filed a reply affidavit dated Nil (November 2005).
Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned Counsel representing Mr. N. Dilip Kumar made the following submissions:
a) The attempt by the State Government to take back the land by force is not permissible and only the way open to the State Government is to
execute the decree obtained by them.
b) The documents that were produced along with counter affidavit regarding taking over possession were false statements and possession is still in
the hands of the petitioner Company.
c) If and when the State files an E.P., the petitioner can defend the execution of the decree with such defence as are open to them.
Under such circumstances, he has prayed for a direction to the State not to forceably deprive the petitioner''s possession of the land which is
allegedly in their hands.
The petitioner has now came forward with a second round of the litigation. His first writ petition itself in W.P. No. 2998 of 1973 is filed for a
similar prayer and this Court by judgment dated 11-10-1977 has directed the respondent/State to evict the petitioner by way of moving the civil
Court. In obedience of the direction given by this Court, the petitioner/State had moved the Civil Court and had obtained a decree from this Court
at the appellate stage in A.S. No. 594 of 1985 dated 05-07-2001.
In all fairness, the petitioner, a registered Company should have surrender of the lands without awaiting for further course of action. In the
present case, a criminal case has been filed against the Company. Records produced shows that the possession of the lands were taken over by
the Government and a notice board had also put up against illegal trespassers. Even though, such contentions are raised, this is not a fit case that at
the hands of the respondent who had suffered a decree, the Court can grant relief. It is also noted as against judgment and decree passed by this
Court, the petitioner had moved the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 15106 of 2002. For a reasons best known they withdrew the
petition. But no liberty was given to the Company for moving this Court as could be seen from the order in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.
15106 of 2002 dated 12-08-2002.
The Board members of the Company would have thought of further obstruction to the respondent/State from taking over the possession,
though on facts actual physical possession of the suit land was no longer involved. The petitioner can not get any relief for the following reasons:
a) The petitioner Company had suffered a decree and he cannot to be continue over their possession ;
b) The respondent/State pursuant to the earlier order of this Court had moved the Civil Court and had obtained a decree in Appeal;
c) With reference to the actual possession of the land in question, the parties cannot record the evidence before this Court on such contentious
issues;
The petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and it was only to delay in handing over the possession. In such circumstances this
Court has discretionary jurisdiction to deny any relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved,
he has to move the appropriate forum by filing a civil suit.
In the light of the same , the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. There is no impediment for the District administration to take over the
land from the petitioner. Consequently connected WPMP. No. 10394 of 2005 is closed.