JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order issued vide No.1266/TCP/LAD/JN/2007-08/637 dated 03.04.2008. 2. The impugned order reads as under: “No.1266/TCP/LAD/JN/2007-08/637 GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNINT DEPARTMENT To P. Pushpavalli Puducherry, The No.33, Victoria Nagar, 3 APR 2008 Ellaipillaichavady, Puducherry. Sir, Sub: Town & Country Planning Department – Land Acquisition & Development Scheme – Request to allot Plot behind your existing residence – Reg. Ref: Your letter No. Nil dt: 20.03.2008. Kindly refer your letter cited above. In this regard, I am to state that the site was inspected and found that some coconut, neem trees etc, with shrubs exist at site. Therefore, you are requested to remove the same and the fencing posts with barbed wire from the site, within a week’s time since the earmarked site is already sold and this department is not in a position to allot the mentioned site as requested by you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (G. DURAIRAJ) CHIEF TOWN PLANNER” 3. In support of the petition, it is pleaded, that the property comprised in Survey No.141/4, Cadastre No.109½ , measuring 27 acres and 50 centiares at Villianur main road, Pavazhakaranchavady, Reddiyarpalayam Revenue Village, Oulgaret commune, Puducherry, originally belonged to Arputhamarie Gnanadicom, having purchased it vide a sale deed dated 10.11.1955. Out of this land, the petitioner purchased land measuring 1800 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No.141/4B, Cadastre No.109½ , Villianur main road, Pavazhakaranchavady, Reddiyarpalayam Revenue Village, Oulgaret commune, Puducherry, vide sale deed dated 12.06.1980. 4. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the property since 1970 and in addition to the property purchased, the petitioner is also in possession of 2300 sq.ft. of land in Old R.S.No.141/2, New R.S.No.141/4 (sub-divided as R.S.No.141/14), Pavazhakaranchavady, Reddiyarpalayam Revenue Village, Oulgaret commune, Puducherry. The petitioner has fenced the property in his possession. 5. The case of petitioner is that, being in possession of the property, he requested the respondent no.2, i.e., The Chief Town Planner, Town & Country Planning Department, to refrain from demolishing the bathroom and cut the trees planted by petitioner in 2300 sq.ft. 6. The petitioner was considered to be in unauthorized encroacher and was served with notice dated 26.05.1999, calling upon him to remove the cattle shed and the structure on the land. 6. The petitioner was considered to be in unauthorized encroacher and was served with notice dated 26.05.1999, calling upon him to remove the cattle shed and the structure on the land. The petitioner, in reply, sent a legal notice dated 18.09.1999 to the 3rd respondent, asking him not to demolish or remove the bathroom structures and trees. Thereafter, no action was taken. 7. In March 2008, the 2nd respondent tried to remove the structures on the plea, that the property in possession of petitioner was sold to Mr. P.K. Loganathan by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner made a request to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Puducherry on 20.03.2008, and requested him to direct the 2nd respondent to sell the land in possession of petitioner to him. 8. The petitioner was however served with notice dated 03.04.2008, directing him to remove the barbed fence and to hand over the site to the 2nd respondent within a week, as the site was sold to Mr. P.K. Loganathan. 9. It is the case of petitioner, that he filed O.S.No.499 of 2008 in the Court of learned II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, seeking permanent injunction against forcible removal from the site in dispute. 10. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on the ground, that after transfer of land to Mr. P.K. Loganathan, respondents have no jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to remove the encroachment, as the property has ceased to be a public property. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends, that the writ is not competent, as by way of impugned order, only the request of petitioner to transfer the land has been rejected, as he has no legal right to purchase and furthermore, the land already stands transferred to Mr. P.K. Loganathan under the policy decision taken by the State Government for transfer of land to Ex. M.L.A. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents is right that the petitioner cannot claim transfer of land as a matter of right merely because of unauthorized possession, in absence of any policy decision of the State Government. 13. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner is right, that the authority to remove the unauthorized occupant from the Government land, cannot be exercised by the respondents after the property stood sold to a private party. The remedy with transferee is to approach the Civil Court for possession of the land. 14. 13. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner is right, that the authority to remove the unauthorized occupant from the Government land, cannot be exercised by the respondents after the property stood sold to a private party. The remedy with transferee is to approach the Civil Court for possession of the land. 14. The impugned order itself shows, that the ownership of the property now vests with Mr. P.K. Loganathan, who can take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to get the possession thereof being owner of the property, but respondents cannot direct eviction of petitioner after land ceases to be the Government land. 15. It is admitted case of petitioner, that the dispute between the petitioner and the present owner is already pending in the Civil Court for adjudication. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned part of notice, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of seven days is ordered to be quashed, while the order rejecting his request for transfer of land is upheld. 17. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.