Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2001 (MAD)

R. Aathi v. District Collector, Ramanathapuram

2014-07-07

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, by the petitioner, seeking a writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent, to prevent the fourth respondent from encroaching upon the property, in Survey No.132/1, to an extent of 1 acre 71 cents, which is classified as a dump yard, for the use of the people of Rameswaram, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 06.06.2014. 2. The petitioner has stated that the property in question, is to be used, as a dump yard, by the third respondent Municipality. However, the fourth respondent, had filed a civil suit, in O.S.No.110 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rameswaram, wherein, the respondents 1 to 3, were the defendants. The said suit had been filed, by the fourth respondent, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein, from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the property in question, by the fourth respondent. The said suit, in O.S.No.110 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rameswaram, had been decreed in favour of the fourth respondent, by way of an exparte decree dated 28.02.2001. Thereafter, the execution proceedings had been initiated, in E.P.No.7 of 2013. 3. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, stating that the third respondent ought to have used the property in question, as a dump yard, for the collection of garbage. However, the respondents 1 to 3 herein, had colluded with the fourth respondent and had allowed the civil suit to be decreed, exparte. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent had submitted that the respondents 1 and 2, had remained exparte in the execution proceedings, in E.P.No.7 of 2013. However, the third respondent is contesting the matter and is taking steps to file a Civil Revision Petition, before this Court, for the reopening of the matter and for hearing the same, on merits, by the civil Court concerned. 5. In view of the said submissions made and taking into account the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and on a perusal of the records available, we find no cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. In view of the said submissions made and taking into account the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and on a perusal of the records available, we find no cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. It is noted that the issue in question, relating to the land, situated in S.No.132/1, within the jurisdiction of Rameswaram Municipality, was the subject matter of the decree made, in O.S.No.110 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rameswaram. The said suit had been filed by the fourth respondent herein and an exparte decree had been passed in favour of the fourth respondent, on 28.02.2001. Thereafter, the execution proceedings had also been initiated, in E.P.No.7 of 2013 and the same is pending disposal. It is also noted that the third respondent had initiated the proceedings to set aside the exparte decree, by moving a Civil Revision Petition before this Court. 6. In these circumstances, this writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.