AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.12.2000 made in W.P. No.
20311 of 2000, in and by which the learned Judge, after considering the claim of both parties, dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the
petitioners to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
The subject matter relates to six acres of land in Survey No. 105 /2. Though the writ petitioners claim that they are in possession of the said
land, in the counter affidavit filed by the Department before the learned Judge, it is stated that portion of the land in Survey No. 105/2 was allotted
as an alternate site to those who have been evicted for the construction of the bridge measuring an extent of one acre is in nobodys possession and
physical enjoyment. Again in para 15 of their counter, the respondent has stated that the portion of the land in gramanatham Survey No. 105/2 of
Adayalampattu Village, which was shown as alternate site is not in actual physical possession of the petitioners and therefore proceedings under
the Land Encroachment Act need not be initiated. After noting the specific stand of the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk and the claim of the petitioners,
the learned Judge, rightly permitted the petitioners to file a civil suit before appropriate Court. It is not in dispute that disputed questions of fact,
such as possession of property cannot be gone into in writ proceedings. In such circumstances, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.