Judgment :- Common Order: While, the prayer in the first four writ petitions is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to hand over possession of a property situated in T.S.No.117/1, Chinnakadai Street, Block No.V, Ward No.I, Tiruvannamalai Town, the prayer in the remaining three writ petitions is to set aside a notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these writ petitions and Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners in all these writ petitions were in occupation of small extents of land measuring somewhere between 2 cents and 4 cents in T.S.No.117/1, Chinnakadai Street, Tiruvannamalai. According to the petitioners, there was a dispute between them and a temple which claimed ownership to the entire extent of land. In the revenue records, the entire extent of land is classified as Anjeneya Swamy Temple Poromboke land, After the temple was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, an Association known as "Balijakula Naidu Sangam sought a declaration before the Deputy Commissioner that the temple belonged to their community. The claim was rejected by the Department, but ultimately, the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai set aside the orders of the Commissioner and declared the temple to be a private temple belonging to the said community. The judgment and decree of the Sub Court were also confirmed by this Court in A.S.NO.767 of 1998. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of the said Sangam which claims ownership of the temple, the respondents forcibly evicted the petitioners. The petitioners had earlier instituted a suit against Balijakula Naidu Sangam in O.S.No.789 of 1989 and the same was decreed. It is the contention of the petitioners that having suffered a decree before the Civil Court, the aforesaid Sangam prevailed upon the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and that therefore the proceedings are vitiated. Moreover it is the further contention of the petitioners that without issuing a notice first under Section 7 of the Act, the notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued and that therefore the procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed. 5. The respondents have produced the files and I have perused the same. 6. Moreover it is the further contention of the petitioners that without issuing a notice first under Section 7 of the Act, the notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued and that therefore the procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed. 5. The respondents have produced the files and I have perused the same. 6. As on date, it is admitted by the petitioners that they have been dispossessed. This is why the petitioners have sought, in the first four writ petitions, a prayer for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to hand over possession. It is admited by the writ petitioners that they have already been thrown out of possession even before the filing of the writ petitions. 7. The petitioners, admittedly filed civil suits for declaration and injunction before approaching this Court. These suits were filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. The details of these suits are as follows: TABLE Admittedly, the petitioners sought interim orders of injunction before the Civil Court to protect their possession. Since interim orders were not granted, the petitioners were thrown out of possession. Thereafter, the petitions have come up with the present writ petitions. On the date on which the writ petitions were filed and admitted, the Civil Suits were pending. Subsequently, they were either allowed to be dismissed for default or withdrawn without liberty. In such circumstances, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. . 8. The records produced by the respondents show that notices were served. Unfortunately, the notices served on the petitioners were in a printed format, which according to the learned Special Government Pleader was used in common for the proceedings both under Section 7 and under Section 6 for the Act. In other words, according to the respondents, an opportunity was granted to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot complain of violation of atleast the principles of neural justice, though the violation of the procedures under Section 7 of the Act, to some extent may be made out. 9. In any event, since the petitioners have been dispossessed, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners. Mr. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot complain of violation of atleast the principles of neural justice, though the violation of the procedures under Section 7 of the Act, to some extent may be made out. 9. In any event, since the petitioners have been dispossessed, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in B.M. Habibullah vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1994 Madras 222) in support of his contention that a person dispossessed without due process of law can be put back to possession. However, I do not think that such a relief can be granted to persons who approached the Civil Court even before they were dispossessed and who failed to obtain interim orders before the Civil Court and who came up with writ petitions even while keeping those suits pending. Moreover, such a relief was declined by the Apex Court in Anamalai Cub vs. Government of Tamil Nadu ( (1997 )3 SCC 169 ) 10. Admittedly, the lands are classified as temple poromboke lands. The petitioners have been dispossessed even in the year 2002. There is no dispute that the petitioners were only encroachers. Therefore, the question of putting them back to possession, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.