Judgment : The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioners possession or forbearing the respondents from in any way dispossessing the petitioner from the property bearing T.S.No.703/1E, Pollachi town except in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is the owner of S.No.703/4 and 703/5 in Pollachi Town. The adjacent property is S.No.703/1, which had been subdivided into 703/1-A to 703/1G and the same, as admitted by the petitioner in his affidavit is classified as follows: T.S.No. Extent Classification 703/1-A 39 sq.ft. Municipal drain, 703/1-B 0.4890 sq.ft. Municipal School site 703/1-C 1.4890 sq.ft. Government and Municipal well 703/1-D 0.64 sq.ft. Municipal Lane, 703/1-E 0.4734 sq.ft. Government vacant site. 703/1-F 0.10480 sq.ft. Municipal Lane. 703/1-G 0.2008 sq.ft. Municipal School site. From the above statement, it is very clear that the S.No.703/1-A was classified as Municipal drain; 1B as Municipal School site; 1-C classified as Government Municipal well; 1-D classified as Municipal Lane; 1-E as Government vacant site; 1-F as Municipal Lane and 1G as Municipal School site. 3. The subjects matter in this writ petition is S.No.703/1-E, which admittedly is encroached by the petitioner and she sought for the assignment of the land as early as in 1973. The Board of Revenue, in their proceedings dated 27.12.1973 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for the assignment of the land on the ground the same is required for public purpose as the surrounding places are classified as school site, municipal drain and municipal land. The petitioner, not satisfied with that, preferred a revision before, the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O.Ms.No.2055, dated 19.10.1977 had rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. 4. Having kept quite for nearly four years, once again the petitioner, woke up for her claim and filed a writ petition in W.P.No.229 of 1981 on the file of this Court seeking for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the authorities from resorting to eviction proceedings. Though the writ petition was admitted and interim stay was granted ultimately the same was dismissed. Having filed the writ petition, the petitioner wanted to pursue his remedy before the revenue authorities, consequently, she made a representation to the Minister for the Revenue dated 21.1.1981. The said representation was forwarded to the Tahsildar for his report and the eviction proceedings was also stayed. Having filed the writ petition, the petitioner wanted to pursue his remedy before the revenue authorities, consequently, she made a representation to the Minister for the Revenue dated 21.1.1981. The said representation was forwarded to the Tahsildar for his report and the eviction proceedings was also stayed. Even though by a letter dated 9.3.1982 the Tahsildar requested the petitioner to appear for the enquiry, the records do not disclose as to whether any enquiry was held and the petitioner was granted any relief. The petitioner on 3.4.1982 mad a representation to the Collector, praying to recommend for the assignment of the land to the Government. Nothing moved and ultimately the petitioner has filed this writ petition, ofcourse when the eviction proceedings were resorted to by the respondents. From the above facts, it is very clear that whenever any steps are being taken to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner, the petitioner consistently approached the revenue authorities or the Court and ultimately has successfully evaded or prevented the eviction proceedings. 5. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners only contention is that the petitioner is the owner of the adjacent patta land and S.No.703/1-E, classified as Government vacant site is in her occupation continuously for long number of years and as such, the petitioner is entitled for the assignment and the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners possession and even assuming the respondents can interfere with her possession, they can do so only under due process of law. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The typed set field along with the writ petition clearly reveals that the Revenue Department is trying to evict the petitioner from the encroachment from the year 1973. Whenever any steps are being taken, the petitioner has resorted to file an appeal or revision and obtain stay. When admittedly the petitioner is an encroacher on the Government property it is not clear as to how the petitioner can come to this Court by way of this writ petition. When the petitioner is an encroacher, equally it cannot be disputed that her action is unlawful, illegal and wrong doing. A Division Bench of this Court in Sekhar and others v. D.Mallikarjuna and others Sekhar and others v. D.Mallikarjuna and others Sekhar and others v. D.Mallikarjuna and others (2000)3 MLJ. When the petitioner is an encroacher, equally it cannot be disputed that her action is unlawful, illegal and wrong doing. A Division Bench of this Court in Sekhar and others v. D.Mallikarjuna and others Sekhar and others v. D.Mallikarjuna and others Sekhar and others v. D.Mallikarjuna and others (2000)3 MLJ. 123 has held that a wrong doer cannot be permitted to approach this Court for the relief. 6. Similarly, another Division Bench of this Court in Tiruchirapalli Palplorul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Trichy Tiruchirapalli Palplorul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Trichy Tiruchirapalli Palplorul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Trichy (1998)2 C.T.C. 610 has held that the proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India can be involved only to protect the existing right. In this case, when the petitioner is admittedly an encroacher, definitely there is no subsisting right to be safeguarded and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Thepetitioners attempt from 1973 to seek the assignment also cannot be said to be a legal demand especially when she is in unauthorised occupation as an encroacher. In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 152 the Apex Court has held that either granting the assignment or providing alternative site for an encroacher will amount to yielding to the pressure of the encroacher for his unlawful act and paying a premium for his illegal act. If the demand of the petitioner is considered on the above principles, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition, especially when her occupation is nothing but an encroachment. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only). Connected W.M.P.No.10819 of 1995 is also dismissed.