Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3619 (MAD)

B. Rajkumar v. State of Tamilnadu

2012-08-17

V.DHANAPALAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner have prayed for a mandamus to forbear the respondents from evicting the petitioners from peaceful possession of their property at Plot Nos.298, 297, 307, Dunlop Nagar, 89, Veppampattu, Thiruvallur-602 024, without adhering to the due process of law, by considering the petitioners' representation dated 25.7.2012. 3. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that they are residing in the abovesaid plots with their family and children for several years. They are in possession from the date of purchase under valid sale deeds dated 4.12.1997, 20.1.2006 and 25.4.2007 respectively. They claim that they are paying necessary taxes like house tax, water tax etc., in a regular manner. The plots in Dunlop Nagar are mainly residential plots consisting of more than 200 houses and there is a private school comprising of 500 students. While so, the respondents are suddenly coming to their place to evict them from their peaceful possession. The petitioners also pleaded that the Highways Department has issued a public notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 to acquire the lands for public purpose for constructing railway overbridge on the existing level crossing LC14 in Veppampattu (Perumalpattu) Village. The respondents called for objections and the land owners have appeared before them and shown their cause. Thereafter, the Notification under Section 15(2) of the said Act has been issued and after hearing the land owners, the work was started and now 75% of the construction work has been completed. While that being the position, the respondents are now making an attempt to evict the petitioners from their possession without following due process of law. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed for the relief as stated above. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners consistently pleaded that the petitioners are in lawful occupation of their lands and therefore, they cannot be evicted without following due process of law. In this regard, the petitioners have already submitted a representation to the first respondent, who is the competent authority to look into their grievance and pending consideration of the same, it is not proper for the respondents to evict the petitioners. 5. In this regard, the petitioners have already submitted a representation to the first respondent, who is the competent authority to look into their grievance and pending consideration of the same, it is not proper for the respondents to evict the petitioners. 5. Learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the respondents, on going through the various documents annexed in the typed set of papers, submitted that the authorities have followed due process of law as far as the acquisition of the lands for the project is concerned and it is also pleaded that almost, the work has been completed and the apprehension of the petitioners at this stage may not be correct. They have no case to plead before this Court for any interim order. 6. It is seen that the petitioners are the land owners by virtue of the respective sale deeds and they are living in their respective plots as claimed by them. It is not in dispute that the project of construction of overbridge for Veppampattu level crossing LC14 has been started by acquiring the lands and the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and proceeded with after following the procedures contemplated under law. It is admitted that about 75% of the work in the said project has been completed. It is not known to this Court as to why the petitioners have come before this Court apprehending certain things to happen as the officials from the office of the respondents visited their place and it is stated that they are attempting to evict them. In this regard, the petitioners have addressed a representation to the first respondent on 25.7.2012 and if that representation is looked into, the grievance of the petitioners would be redressed. 7. In the light o the above facts, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners pleaded that the petitioners will be satisfied and their grievance would be redressed if their representation is considered in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 25.7.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and appropriate orders be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the petitioners are not to be evicted without following due process of law. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.