Judgment Heard both sides. 2. W.P.No.13854 of 2007 is filed by M/s.Sankar and Tiruvenkatam seeking for a direction to forbear respondents 1 to 4 from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective sites at Survey No.437/2 of Cheyyur Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and also to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay a compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs to the first petitioner and Rs.1 lakh to the second petitioner for the damages and loss caused to the petitioners and their properties on 05.04.2007. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 17.04.2007. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought for an interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in the said survey number. This Court by an order dated 17.04.2007 granted interim injunction, if the petitioners have not already been dispossessed. 4. On behalf of the official respondents, an application to vacate the interim injunction was filed in M.P.No.1 of 2009 together with a supporting counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the Government Adi Dravidar Girls Hostel is situated in S.No.437/2 of Cheyyur village on the North Eastern portion of the field. According to the Village Accounts, the total extent of S.No.437/2 is 71. 0 hectares, registered in the name of Arulmigu Kandasamy Koil Devasthanam. .5. It was further stated that one acre from the said land was acquired by the State Government under Award No.1/86-87 dated 23.09.1986 and compensation was also paid to the then Trustee one C.Ramasamy. Thereafter, possession was taken over and Girls Hostel was constructed in that site and from that time, Girls Hostel was in existence. In order to protect the safety of the girls residing in the hostel, it was decided to construct a compound wall for the said hostel and measurement was taken for the same. While measuring the area, it was found that the petitioners were running two shops in the land acquired for the hostel. 6. Therefore, action was taken to remove the shops from that place and notice was given to them. Each time when the shops were removed, they returned and put up temporary shops. Both the shops were removed by the Tahsildar, Cheyyur on 05.04.2007. Aggrieved by this action, the present writ petition (W.P.No.13854/2007) was filed. 6. Therefore, action was taken to remove the shops from that place and notice was given to them. Each time when the shops were removed, they returned and put up temporary shops. Both the shops were removed by the Tahsildar, Cheyyur on 05.04.2007. Aggrieved by this action, the present writ petition (W.P.No.13854/2007) was filed. It was also stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to continue to remain in the said land. After the removal, under the cover of the interim injunction, they once again came back and put up some temporary roof and have started running the shops. It was also stated that the land in question absolutely vest with Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, after acquisition of one acre under the Land Acquisition Act in S.No.437/2. The possession was fully taken over by the State and no other person can claim possession of the said property. 7. The petitioners have filed a re-joinder stating that they are paying property tax to the fifth respondent temple and they were not dispossessed by them. They are also enjoying electricity supply connection to the said place and the respondents 1 to 4 are not the owners of the said property. The Girls Hostel was opened only in the year August 1985. 8. In the mean while, the petitioners have come forward to file two separate writ petitions being W.P.Nos.20586 and 20587 of 2009. In each of the writ petitions, they have come forward to challenge the orders of the 6th respondent Electricity Board dated 010. 2009 wherein, they were informed that the Special Tahsildar, Madurantagam has informed that the petitioners are in an encroached land and therefore, they should not be given electric supply. Only when the petitioners proved that the lands belonged to the Arulmigu Kandasamy Koil Devasthanam and got an order from the Court, they can be given power supply. 9. When these two writ petitions came on 010. 2009, notice was directed to be served on the counsel for the respondents. 10. On behalf of the Special Deputy Collector (Temple Lands), it was shown that in S.No.437/2, there was no encroachment by any person. The Special Tahsildar through written instructions dated 10. 9. When these two writ petitions came on 010. 2009, notice was directed to be served on the counsel for the respondents. 10. On behalf of the Special Deputy Collector (Temple Lands), it was shown that in S.No.437/2, there was no encroachment by any person. The Special Tahsildar through written instructions dated 10. 2009 stated that the land in question belonged to the State Government and they proposed to construct a compound wall to protect the girl students and hence he addressed the Electricity Board for disconnecting the power supply. In his further letter dated 011. 2009, it was stated that several times the petitioners were directed to remove their shops and it was also removed on 05.04.2007. It was on the strength of the interim injunction granted by this Court, once again the petitioners have entered the said shops. The fact that they pay Rs.50/- as a lease amount to the Trustees will not ensure to their benefit. 11. On behalf of the petitioners, an attempt is made to produce an Encumberance Certificate in respect of the said survey number stating that the land belong to the Devasthanam. In respect of Survey No.437/2, the patta dated 06.05.2003 stands in the name of the Devasthanam. Even the revenue records show that it was the Devasthanam land. The petitioner also produced Electricity Bills to show that they are enjoying the service connections. 12. The learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court reported in 2009 (4) CTC 606 [Muthusamy and others v. Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Tirunelveli] to show that this Court had given direction to grant electricity supply after getting an Indemnity Bond with the condition that the supply of electricity will not confer any right over the land. 13. Since the petitioners immediately wanted the electricity service connections, the earlier writ petition (W.P.No.13854/2007) which was still pending was also directed to be posted. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed. .14. When the petitioners seek for a possessory right over the land and the respondents having taken a clear stand that the petitioners were removed from the said place as encroachers, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed. .14. When the petitioners seek for a possessory right over the land and the respondents having taken a clear stand that the petitioners were removed from the said place as encroachers, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Since the right of the petitioners to continue in the said land is questioned, it is for the petitioners to establish their right before an appropriate civil court and get back possession of the land. The petitioners have not proved that the land in question belonged to the Devasthanam and that they have got a valid lease in their favour. Hence, W.P.No.13854 of 2007 cannot be entertained by this Court. 15. Once the petitioners have failed to prove that they have a right to be in possession of the land by legal means, the question of directing the Electricity Board to give power supply will not arise. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any direction as sought for by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20586 and 20587 of 2009. 116. In the result, all the three writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.