Judgment :- T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take action to ensure that there are no encroachments of government and other Poromboke lands by influential persons and to cause an enquiry and cancel the pattas, permissions granted for laying out lands and carrying on construction in lands encroached upon by such influential persons including the 8th and 9th respondents, their families and those claiming under them, resume lands from land grabbers. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that Saravambakkam Village in Kanchipuram District measures approximately 541 acres and 31 cents out of which 397 acres and 1 cent is wet and dry agricultural lands, 144 acres and 30 cents of land is classified as government poromboke lands, an extent of 58 acres and 80 cents is a large irrigation tank (Eri) in Survey No.157. Apart from a smaller water body measuring 13 acres and 7 cents situated in Survey No.152. 3. The allegation of the petitioner is that on account of the influential families in that area many agriculturists, marginal farmers and artisans have been displaced and out of 144 acres and 31 cents, some of which was grama natham for adi dravidas, grazing lands used by backward classes and adi dravidas only 37 acres and 79 cents is available at present for the community use and the rest of the lands, namely 106 acres out of the total extent of 144 acres has been encroached. It is further stated that the land adjacent to the water body, which is a catchment area assigned with survey No.168/1, a layout has been formed by one Narayana Reddy and the said person and his duly constituted agent Sivasubramaniam sold an extent of 3 acres and 27 cents to various persons. That eri poromboke and grama natham lands have been appropriated by the 8th and 9th respondent and their families and they have fenced the area rapidly cutting off access to water and roads to villagers. In this regard, the petitioner stated to have made several representations to the authorities and also submitted an application under the Right to Information Act on 09.02.2009. In this regard, the petitioner stated to have made several representations to the authorities and also submitted an application under the Right to Information Act on 09.02.2009. In response to said application, a reply from the Tahsildar dated 10.02.2009 was received and it is stated by the petitioner that the Tahsildar confirmed the encroachment upon the cart track and public way by bared wire fencing and compound wall. It is further stated that the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) by letter dated 11.02.2009, addressed the petitioner stating that it was proposed to acquire survey Nos. 154, 153 & 169 and distribute to the people entitled for getting allotment, but however no further developments have taken place inspite of the petitioners representations dated 12.02.2009 and 11.03.2009. With the above stated facts, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a issuance of a writ of mandamus for the relief stated above. On receipt of notice from this Court, the fourth respondent herein filed a inspection report dated 01.04.2010 giving details about the encroachments in Survey Nos.153, 154, 169, 155/3, 306/2 and 154/4. This Court by order dated 08.04.2010, after recording the said report of the fourth respondent directed the third respondent to take immediate action to evict and resume the lands from the hands of the encroachers, in the interest of public and report of the same from the Court within a period of four weeks. It is submitted that the compound wall constructed by the respondents 8 and 9 have been removed and proceedings are being taken. 4. Heard. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 7 and Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned counsel for the Respondents 8 to 9. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the contentions in the affidavit, would submit that though action has been taken to demolish the compound wall, yet, no appreciable steps have been taken to hand over the lands to the deserving landless poor. The learned counsel placed reliance on the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram, dated 25.01.2010 and submitted that it is only proposed to the Land Commissioner for invoking Section 18A, Land Reforms Act for the purpose of reopening the proceedings under Section 15(8) of the Act 1961. The learned counsel placed reliance on the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram, dated 25.01.2010 and submitted that it is only proposed to the Land Commissioner for invoking Section 18A, Land Reforms Act for the purpose of reopening the proceedings under Section 15(8) of the Act 1961. Therefore, it is submitted that unless appropriate direction is issued, no further steps have been taken by the authority in this regard. 6. The learned Government Pleader would submit that all the lands held by the family of the land owner Thiru. Konda Reddy were not covered by the land reforms proceedings and action was initiated under Act 17 of 1970 against 3 persons with reference to the position as on 15.02.1970, namely Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal, wife of late T.Ramasamy Reddiar, Yogammal and Konda Reddiar. It is further contended that the lands held by T. Ramasamy Reddiyar were divided into three and added to the holdings of the three legal heirs mentioned above for determining the ceiling under Act 17 of 1970. However, on perusal of the old A Register prior to the UDR reveals that certain lands were registered in the name of the family members, whose name is mentioned above, as on 15.02.1970. It is further contended that it is not known, the lands were disposed of by the land owner even prior to 6.04.1960. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram has now proposed to the land Commissioner for invoking Section 18(A), to determine the holdings as on 06.04.1960 under Act 58 of 1961, since the proceedings were already concluded under Act 17 of 1970. Further, it is contended that the land Commissioner by proceedings dated 26.03.2010 has issued direction to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram under Section 18(A) of the Act, 58 of 1961 to reopen the case of Thiru. Ramasamy Reddiar to determine the family holdings as on 06.04.1960. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings are being taken in accordance with law. 7. Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 and 9, after relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the 8th and 9th respondents, would contend that under the guise of removing the encroachments, the authorities have demolished the compound wall constructed on their private patta lands and would contend that they are entitled to be compensated for the loss sustained. 8. 8. Having given our anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the records placed before this Court, it is evident that the authorities has now set the law in motion in order to reclaim the lands, which is stated to have been encroached by certain persons. In fact, pursuant to the proceedings of Joint Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram dated 25.01.2010, it is seen that the Land Commissioner has issued direction under Section 18(A) of Act 58 of 1961 to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram to reopen the case. These facts are evident from the proceedings of the Director of Land Reforms, dated 13.04.2010. For better appreciation, the proceedings are extracted as hereunder:- "Rc.No.D1/1285/09(L.Ref.) Office of the Director of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai -5. Dated:13.04.2010 Endorsement Sub: Land Reforms – Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (FCL) Act, 1961 – Kancheepuram District – Madurantakam Taluk – Saravambakkam Village – Holdings of the family of Thiru. Konda Reddiar – Action initiated – Regarding. It is informed that based on the complaints received from the petitioner Thiru M.Krishna Parayanar against the family holdings of Thiru Konda Reddiar of Saravambakkam Village, enquiry was made by the then joint Commissioner (L.Ref.), Villupuram and after due process, in the Proceedings No.D1/1285/2009 (L.Ref.), dt.26.03.2010, the Land Commissioner has issued direction the Assistant Commissionder (L.Ref.), Villupuram under Section 18-A of the above said Act to re-open the case of Thiru Ramasamy Reddiar and initiate proceedings under the Principal Act, 1961 to determine the family holdings as on 06.04.1960. This is for information. for Director of Land Reforms, To Thiru M. Krishna Parayanar, No.147, - 5th Main Street, West Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041." 9. In the above circumstances, this Court is of this view that ends of justice would met, if appropriate directions are issued to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram to proceed further pursuant to the direction issued to the Director of Land Reforms. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Villupuram to comply with the direction issued by the Land Commissioner in his proceedings dated 26.03.2010, for reopening the case relating to the holdings of Thiru Ramasamy Reddiar as on 06.04.1960 by proceed in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the aggrieved individuals. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram is directed to commence the proceedings of reopening of the case within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and proceed in accordance with law and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind that the landless poor have been deprived of their legitimate entitlement. So far as the grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents 8 and 9, if the authorities have demolished the compound wall of the respondents 8 and 9 in their patta land, it is always open to the respondents 8 and 9 to approach the appropriate forum seeking compensation for any such alleged loss or damaged. The Writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.