Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.1998 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in A.S.No.101 of 1998 in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.1997 in O.S.No.2152 of 1993 passed by the Learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. The 1st Appellate Court, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.101 of 1998 on 07.12.1998 in the Appeal has inter alia observed that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not proved that it has acquired adverse possession in respect of the suit property and further, opined that in the suit property though there is a temple, the same is to be called as in Siruvani Highways and there is no document to describe as temple property and moreover, the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction as per Section 14 of The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to hear the suit and resultantly, set aside the portion of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal without costs. Finally, the suit in O.S.No.2152 of 1993 on the file of the trial Court has been dismissed in toto. 3. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 2 issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.17 have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witness D.W.1 has been examined and Exs.B1 and B.2 have been marked. Also, Exs.C.1 and C.2 have been marked on the side of the Court. 4. The trial Court on an analysis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a consequent conclusion that the Appellant/ Plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of declaration in respect of the suit property and also the Appellant/Plaintiff has not established the relief of adverse possession, but granted only the relief of permanent injunction and decreed the suit, without costs to that effect. 5. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of Law: 1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in law in setting aside the decree for injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant which has not been challenged by the Respondents by way of appeal? 2. 5. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of Law: 1. Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in law in setting aside the decree for injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant which has not been challenged by the Respondents by way of appeal? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in law in holding that the Land Encroachment Act would apply to the temple property overlooking the saving provision of Section 2 of the Act? 6. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial questions of law 1 and 2: According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the 1st Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in the main suit, which has not been challenged by the Respondents/Defendants and this erroneous approach has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) submits that the 1st Appellate Court has gone wrong in setting aside the decree for injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff, which has not been challenged by the Respondents by means of a separate Appeal. 8. The stand of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that since the suit property is situated in a temple site, the same will attract the saving provision of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and therefore, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 9. Yet another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Plaintiff is that the suit temple is in existence from time immemorial and in any event from the year 1910 onwards and therefore, the Appellant/Plaintiff has perfected title to the suit property by means of long, continuous and open enjoyment of the site for well over 100 years. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff contends strenuously that no 'B' memos have been issued to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) treating it as an encroacher and as a matter of fact, the trial Court has specifically found that the temple is situated in a poromboke land, which is worshiped by the general public for several years without any hindrance. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff contends strenuously that no 'B' memos have been issued to the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) treating it as an encroacher and as a matter of fact, the trial Court has specifically found that the temple is situated in a poromboke land, which is worshiped by the general public for several years without any hindrance. Drawing the attention of this Court to the Commissioner's Report and Plan viz., Exs.C.1 and C.2, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that suit temple neither blocks the view nor obstruct the flow of traffic and in fact, it is situated in a poromboke land, away from the road. 11. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff is that the ambit of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has been wrongly construed because of the fact that the suit property is a temple in existence for well over 100 years and indeed, the temple attracts the exemption provision of the said Section 2 of the Act. 12. The next limb of argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff is that the 1st Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 makes it clear that anything contained in the Act shall be held to prevent the aggrieved persons to approach the Civil Court for redress within a period of six months. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the 1st Appellate Court has not taken note the real facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective and therefore, the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court in Appeal in A.S.No.101 of 1998 needs to be set aside, in the interest of justice. 13. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the 1st Appellate Court has not taken note the real facts and circumstances of the case in a proper perspective and therefore, the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court in Appeal in A.S.No.101 of 1998 needs to be set aside, in the interest of justice. 13. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Government Advocate (CS) that both the Courts below have come to a clear conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of adverse possession and further, the 1st Appellate Court has clearly held that as per Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case and accordingly, dismissed the Appeal by setting aside the portion of the relief of injunction granted by the trial Court and consequently, dismissed the O.S.No.2152 of 1993 on the file of the trial Court in entirety. As such, the findings of fact arrived at by the 1st Appellate Court need not be upset by this Court sitting in Second Appeal, at this distant point of time. 14. The Appellant/Plaintiff in the plaint before the trial Court has averred that the suit temple is situated in S.No.230/1, Komarapalayam, Coimbatore Taluk and the same is in the State Public Highway known as Perur Road or Siruvani Road. The temple is in existence for well over 100 years from time immemorial. In the Government Plan of the year 1910, existence of the temple has been taken note of and it ought to have been in existence even before that period. 15. The Appellant/Plaintiff has also mentioned in the plaint that the suit temple is worshiped by the general public in and around the area as well as by the persons who pass that road to Perur by foot as well as vehicles. The Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) is in existence for well over 100 years (far beyond the statutory period of 30 years) in its own right, openly, peacefully without interruption and as such, the Appellant/Plaintiff has prescribed title to the area occupied by it. 16. The 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has caused a notice dated 01.10.1993 under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to the Appellant/Plaintiff, who has received it on 04.10.1993. 16. The 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has caused a notice dated 01.10.1993 under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to the Appellant/Plaintiff, who has received it on 04.10.1993. In the said show cause notice, the Appellant/Plaintiff has been given seven days time to remove the occupation of the plaint scheduled property. The plaint scheduled property being a temple site, will attract Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Respondents/Defendants have acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice dated 01.10.1993 to the Appellant/Plaintiff. The Respondents/Defendants have no right to invoke the ingredients of Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of the Appellant/Plaintiff's lawful occupation of the schedule mentioned property without being objected to by any authority for well over 100 years. Hence, the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed a suit praying for the relief of declaration that it has perfected title to the plaint schedule property by means of adverse possession and has also prayed for the relief of injunction and for costs of the suit. 17. In the written statement, the Respondents/Defendants have pleaded that the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10737 of 1983 to justify the encroachment and an order has already been passed by this Court on 26.11.1991 and that the Appellant/Plaintiff has thought fit to file the present suit and also, a petition for injunction. Furthermore, in the order of this Court in the Writ Petition, liberty has been granted to the effect that it is open to the Government and the Highways Department to proceed to remove the encroachment by issuing notice as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, a notice as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Act has been rightly issued. 18. The suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff as an encroacher against the true owner of the property itself is not maintainable in law. The Appellant/ Plaintiff never perfected its title by adverse possession. The Appellant/ Plaintiff has no locus standi to sue or to seek any of the reliefs mentioned in the plaint. The suit, as framed, is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the suit. Also that the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff before the trial Court without issuing notice as per Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, is not sustainable. 19. The suit, as framed, is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the suit. Also that the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff before the trial Court without issuing notice as per Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, is not sustainable. 19. The trial Court in its Judgment in the main suit has categorically held that though P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that the suit temple has been in existence for a number of years and that without any hindrance, the same has been enjoyed etc., it is to be pointed out that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the place in which the suit temple has been situated is a poramboke land and in the said poramboke land, lawful roads are to be laid and that the Appellant/Plaintiff has not acquired the relief of adverse possession though the temple has been in existence for a number of years. The trial Court has only granted the relief of injunction since the existence of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) will not be a hindrance to the public and that has been established through the evidence of P.W.1 and accordingly, granted the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the declaratory relief in respect of the suit property claimed by the temple. 20. The 1st Appellate Court in its Judgment in the Appeal in paragraph-9 has opined that the trial Court while dismissing the declaratory relief of the Appellant/Plaintiff in respect of the suit property, should not have granted the relief of injunction as a consequent relief and further, the Appellant/Plaintiff has encroached the Highways and has constructed the temple and therefore, it can only be construed as an encroachment and it cannot be called as a temple land and held that as per Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the Appeal by setting aside one portion of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the O.S.No.2152 of 1993 in entirety. 21. 21. The 1st Appellate Court has also observed in its Judgment in the Appeal in paragraph-11 that except the 'B' memos, no other document has been produced on the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff and therefore, it has come to the conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has not acquired any right of adverse possession in respect of the suit property and has not granted the declaratory relief in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. 22. In this connection, it is useful for this Court to make a reference to Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 190-5, which enjoins as follows: "2.Right of property in public roads, etc. waters and lands – (1)All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes and tanks and all backwaters, canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing water, and all lands, wherever situated, save in so far as the sane are the property - (a)of any zamindar, poligar, mittadar, jagirdar, shrotriemdar or inamdar or any person aiming through or holding under any of them or (b)of any person paying kist, kattubadi, jodi, poruppu or quit rent to any of the aforesaid persons or (c) of any person holding under ryotwari tenure, including that of a janmi in the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiri District and in the transferred territory or in any way subject to the payment of land-revenue direct to Government, or (d) of any other registered holder of land in proprietary right, or (e) of any other person holding land under grant from the Government otherwise than by way of licence, and, as to lands, save also in so far as they are Temple site or owned as house-site or backyard, are and are hereby declared to be the property of Government except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force subject always to all rights of way and other public rights and to the natural and easement right of other landowners, and to all customary rights legally subsisting. (2)All public roads and streets, vested in any local authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the property of Government. (2)All public roads and streets, vested in any local authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the property of Government. Explanation – In this Section "high water mark" means the highest point reached by ordinary spring-tides at any season of the year." 23. Section 6 of the Act speaks of liability of the person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops etc. Section 7 of the Act refers to issuance of prior notice to the person in occupation. As per Section 7 of the Act, before initiating proceedings as per Section 6, the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any authorised officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an authorised officer) will have to serve notice and the said notice will have to be served as per Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 24. Any action without issuance of notice will vitiate the entire proceedings. Ordinarily, mere payment of penal assessment under the Act cannot clothe an occupier with a right to challenge notice issued under Section 7. If persons admittedly in possession as trespassers and not under any other independent title or right cannot contend that Government has no power to evict them under the Act as per decision BakkaNagaiah and others V. Firka Revenue Inspector 1, Tondiarpet Taluk Office and others in1987 Writ L.R. 362. No wonder, the revenue authorities are required to follow the legal requirements of Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 enjoins bar of jurisdiction of Courts. 25. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Appellant/Plaintiff has already approached this Court in W.P.No.10737 of 1983 and as per order dated 26.11.1991, liberty has been granted to the effect that it is open to the Government and the Highways Department to proceed to remove the encroachment by issuing notice as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 only upon directions issued in the Writ Petition as mentioned before, a notice as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Act has been issued to the Appellant/Plaintiff. For the notice issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act by the Respondents/Defendants, the Appellant/ Plaintiff has not issued a reply. Before issuing a reply, the Appellant/Plaintiff has approached the trial Court praying for a relief of declaration in respect of the suit property and also for consequential injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants, their agents and men from taking action under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act or otherwise interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule mentioned property by the Appellant/Plaintiff. 26. The specific case of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that the Appellant/ Plaintiff (Temple) is entitled to avail the ingredients of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in and by which the temples are exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 27. Admittedly, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has been in existence for well over 100 years. As per Section 14 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in regard to any order passed or proceeding taken by any officer of authority or the State Government under the Act, which shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit in application and further, no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority or the State Government in pursuance of any powers. 28. The bar for filing the suit before a Civil Court is explicit and the tenor of the words employed in Section 14 of the Act envisages that it admits of no exemption. But this legal bar contemplated as per Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has not been looked into by the trial Court. The said ingredients of Section 14 of the Act have been adverted to by the 1st Appellate Court in its Judgment in Appeal and it has accepted the plea of the Respondents/Defendants that the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff is not to be heard by the trial Court and finally, dismissed the suit, while allowing the Appeal in portion and dismissing the Appeal also. It is to be borne in mind, the Appellant/Plaintiff has a right to furnish reply to the show cause notice issued by the Respondents/Defendants dated 01.10.1993. 29. It is to be borne in mind, the Appellant/Plaintiff has a right to furnish reply to the show cause notice issued by the Respondents/Defendants dated 01.10.1993. 29. In the instant case on hand, according to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the temple has issued Ex.A.6 lawyer's reply dated 07.10.1993 addressed to the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant wherein it is specifically mentioned that the public highways measuring over 60 feet is not at all affected in any manner by the existence of the temple, which is situated at the edge of the road and that the Government records recognised the existence of the Vinayagar Temple in the sport in the records of 1910 and also, the temple as a place of worship has been in existence even prior to the commencement of twentieth century. From 1941 onwards, Sri Najaiha Bramahnanda Madam has been continuously managing the temple following all religious injunctions connected with the performance of daily poojas and rituals in the said temple. The Respondents/ Defendants have not passed any orders considering the reply of the Appellant/ Plaintiff (Temple) dated 07.10.1993 issued through its lawyer. Before the authorities could pass orders on the reply dated 07.10.1993 submitted by the Appellant/Plaintiff, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) has chosen to institute the present suit in O.S.No.2152 of 1993 before the trial Court on 25.10.1993. This Court opines that without any orders being passed by the Respondents/ Defendants in regard to the show cause notice issued as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Act dated 01.10.1993, based on the Appellant/Plaintiff's reply dated 07.10.1993 the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff before this Court is a premature and an otiose one. Further, the said suit is clearly hit by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Since, the suit filed by the ppellant/ Plaintiff is not maintainable as per Section 14 of the Act, this Court, on that simple ground alone dismisses the Appeal and leaves the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 unanswered. 30. Further, the said suit is clearly hit by Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Since, the suit filed by the ppellant/ Plaintiff is not maintainable as per Section 14 of the Act, this Court, on that simple ground alone dismisses the Appeal and leaves the substantial questions of law 1 and 2 unanswered. 30. In the result, even though the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff is not maintainable, this Court on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Respondents/Defendants to pass appropriate orders based on the reply of the Appellant/Plaintiff dated 07.10.1993 to the show cause notice issued on 01.10.1993, within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment and the authorities, before passing the necessary orders are to comply with requirements of principle of natural justice by affording adequate opportunities to the Appellant/Plaintiff. Likewise, the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple) is also permitted to raise all other Factual and Legal Issues before the Respondents/Defendants and it is open to the Respondents/Defendants to consider them in a dispassionate manner uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this Judgment. Till necessary orders are passed by the Respondents/Defendants in regard to the eviction notice dated 01.10.1993 issued by them, the Respondents/Defendants shall not disturb the possession of the Appellant/Plaintiff (Temple), which has been in existence for well over 100 years.