Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 848 (MAD)

R. Eswari v. The Commissioner & Others

2006-03-28

R.BANUMATHI

body2006
Judgment :- 1. Petition filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Second Respondent in NaKa. No. Nil/Thee. Va./06 dated 17.3.2006. 2. Case of the Petitioner is that she is an handicapped unemployed woman and with permission she had put up a petty shop within the premises of Usilampatti Government Hospital. The Third Respondent has granted no objection to the Petitioner by the proceedings Naka. No. 2879/93/B6 dated 9.12.1993. The Petitioner is said to have put up a bunk shop and running a tea stall and she is stated to be paying a sum of Rs. 480 per annum towards the rent. The annual rent was periodically increased and now the Petitioner is paying Rs. 1,800 per annum. 3. By the impugned proceedings dated 17.3.2006 in Na.Ka. No. Nil/Thee. Va./06 the Second Respondent has directed the Petitioner to vacate the tea shop since additional space is required for extension of the hospital and that the World Bank Team is also visiting the District Headquarters Hospital on 4.4.2006. 4. Challenging that eviction notice, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner being a physically handicapped unemployed woman, she is entitled to be in possession and occupation of the tea stall till she is evicted under due process of law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that even if the Petitioner is to be treated as an encroacher under the Land Encroachment Act, the Petitioner could be evicted only under due process of law by issuing notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision in Ramaraju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) CTC 74 5. On behalf of the Respondents, learned Government Advocate sought time for making his submissions. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has insisted to pass the order stating that today 28.3.2006 is the last date stipulated for vacating. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. There is no dispute that the Petitioner started running the tea stall only pursuant to the permission granted by the Second Respondent. The Third Respondent namely, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Madurai had granted no objection to the Petitioner through his proceedings (R. Banumathi, J.) Na.Ka.No. 2879/93/B6 dated 9.12.1993. There is no dispute that the Petitioner started running the tea stall only pursuant to the permission granted by the Second Respondent. The Third Respondent namely, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Madurai had granted no objection to the Petitioner through his proceedings (R. Banumathi, J.) Na.Ka.No. 2879/93/B6 dated 9.12.1993. Even in the supporting affidavit the Petitioner has stated that for running the tea stall she has paid a sum of Rs. 480 per annum towards rent in the year 1993. It is also alleged that for every year rental value was increased and the Petitioner is now paying a sum of Rs. 1,800 per annum towards rent. The averments in the affidavit would clearly show that the Petitioner is running the tea stall only pursuant to the licence granted by the Second respondent on the basis of the no objection certificate granted by the Third Respondent. The Petitioner being a licence cannot claim the right of being in occupation in the property of the Respondents. 7. The Second Respondent has issued the notice to the Petitioner calling upon her to vacate the tea stall stating that additional space is required for extending the hospital and the World Bank Team has also proposed to visit the hospital on 4.4.2006. Hence the Petitioner has been directed to vacate on the ground of requirement of additional space for extending the hospital. Larger interest of the general public, who are attending the hospital and who would be benefited by the extension of the hospital has to be kept in view. The larger interest of the public cannot be sacrificed by taking into consideration the interest of one single individual. This is all the more so when the Petitioner is said to be in occupation of the tea stall pursuant to the licence granted to her by the Respondents. 8. The contention urged by the Petitioner that the Petitioner has to be given notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act has no force. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 would apply only to the persons who are in occupation of the Government land without authority or permission and by paying the B Memo charges Only in those cases notice is required to be issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act. The case of the Petitioner stands on a different footing. The case of the Petitioner stands on a different footing. The Petitioner having been in occupation pursuant to the licence. She cannot claim the benefit of issuance of notice as contemplated under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The decision in Ramaraju v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) CTC 741 is not applicable to the case on hand. 9. In the impugned notice it is stated that, the World Bank Team has proposed to visit the premises on 4.4.2006. Running of the tea stall and other stalls would obviously be a hindrance for expansion of the hospital. It is not as if the Petitioner alone has been directed to evict. The notice is also appear to have been issued to the other persons who are running the tea stall another shops. In such circumstances, no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner protecting her occupation. 10. For the foregoing reasons the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.