Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2092 (MAD)

A. R. Santhanakrishnan v. Chief Manager

2014-07-14

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to clear the illegal encroachment and to deliver vacant possession to the petitioner of the property measuring total extent of 14.68 acres of land comprising in the Survey Numbers, viz., (i) S.No.34/7 (7 cents); (ii) S.No.51/7B (34 cents); (iii) S.No.159/2 (44 cents); (iv) S.No.159/3 (30 cents); (v) S.No.159/4 (93 cents); (vi) S.No.159/7 (31 cents); (vii) S.No.159/8 (25 cents); (viii) S.No.32/1C (2.46 acres); (ix) S.No.158/1 (2.72 acres); (x) S.No.40/1 (8 cents); (xi) S.No.40/9A (1.55 acres); (xii) S.No.55/3 (7 cents); (xiii) S.No.55/1 (3.37 acres); (xiv) S.No.52/1 (90 cents); (xv) S.No.162/5 (22 cents); (xvi) S.No.41/3 (19 cents); (xvii) S.No.59/7 (48 cents), at No.9, Karuppur Village, Thanjavur District, in SRO Kuttalam in SR District, Mayiladuthurai, morefully described in the schedule of the property. 2. According to the petitioner, he participated in the e-auction conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai, for the property of the first respondent measuring the total extent of 14.68 acres of the land mentioned in the above survey numbers and he was declared as the successful highest bidder and thereafter, he paid the entire amount of Rs.46,40,000/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) along with 1% poundage fee of Rs.46,410/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ten only) to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Chennai, consequent to which, he was issued with the sale certificates. The first respondent delivered the possession of the said properties. When he visited those properties, he found that they were illegally encroached upon by some persons. The attempts made by the petitioner by his letters to the authorities concerned, to get removed the alleged encroachments, went in vain. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the successful bidder of the e-auction conducted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Chennai and the first respondent bank delivered the possession of the properties concerned and during his visit to the same, he found that the said properties were in the midst of encroachments and therefore, he moved the authorities for removal of the same, but he failed in all his efforts, which necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. Hence, he prayed for appropriate relief to the petitioner. 4. Hence, he prayed for appropriate relief to the petitioner. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. The specific plea of the petitioner is that though he was delivered with the possession of the properties purchased during the auction, he came to know that they were encroached upon. As the representations made to the authorities did not favour in any way, ultimately, he has come before this Court, which, in our opinion, does not warrant at all, for the reason that there is an alternative remedy available to him. We find that the petitioner can approach the competent civil forum in accordance with law, for redressal of his grievance, instead of pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to the rejected. 6. In fine, this writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the competent civil forum as per law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.