JUDGMENT : The defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.303 of 1993 before the District Munsif Court, Manaparai for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.50 of 2000 before Sub-Court, Trichirapalli. The learned Subordinate judge was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants. 3. The plaintiff had contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 35 years by putting up a house in the said property. He further contended that he is in possession of the said property for more than the statutory period. The plaintiff further contended that the second defendant has issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, under Exhibit A.16 contending that the suit schedule properties are a pound. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff further contended that the suit schedule properties are occupied natham and hence, the defendant authorities are not empowered to invoke the Land Encroachment Act. 4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that it is a pound maintained by the Government in the suit schedule properties and since the plaintiff has encroached upon the said pound, the defendants have issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act under Exhibit A.16 in order to remove the encroachment. The defendants further contended that the property is under the administration of the Government and hence, the plaintiff is liable to hand over possession of the said properties. 5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the suit schedule properties are not classified as pound, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not established the date from which he is in adverse possession and the defendants filed on the side of the plaintiffs are not sufficient to prescribe title by adverse possession. 6. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding that legal proceedings have been initiated as against the plaintiff's husband even in the year 1976. But, so far, no steps have been taken to physically evict the plaintiff. 6. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding that legal proceedings have been initiated as against the plaintiff's husband even in the year 1976. But, so far, no steps have been taken to physically evict the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also found that for the past 37 years, the Government has not initiated any action to remove the encroachment. Since the plaintiff is a poor lady and she has acquired title by adverse possession, a decree was granted by the First Appellate Court. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed. 7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the reversing judgment of the lower Court in sustainable in law on the learned Sub-Judge has not appreciated the relevant evidence available on record to decide the issue and the provision of law are applicable to the facts.” 8. The learned Government Advocate for the appellants contended that the plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession over the suit schedule properties, since the plaintiff has not filed any document to the said effect. The learned Government Advocate for the appellants further contended that the documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs would not establish the adverse possession. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that admittedly, he is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 35 years. Exhibit A.19 is of the year 1963 and Exhibit A.20 is the year of 1971 and hence, the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties has been proved and prayed for the dismissal of the second appeal. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side. 11. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is a Government poramboke. The plaintiff has claimed declaration of title and permanent injunction over the said properties on the basis of adverse possession. The defendants have contended that though it is a Government poramboke, it has been used as a pound. The plaintiff has encroached upon the said pound. Exhibit B9 is the Land Register maintained by the Government. The entries in the said register relate from the year 1948 onwards. A perusal of the said Land Register indicates that the Government poramboke is being used as a pound from the year 1948 onwards. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that it is an occupied natham is not factually correct. 12. The entries in the said register relate from the year 1948 onwards. A perusal of the said Land Register indicates that the Government poramboke is being used as a pound from the year 1948 onwards. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that it is an occupied natham is not factually correct. 12. Exhibit A19 is a “B”-Memo issued in the name of plaintiff's husband dated 07.02.1963. Another “B”-Memo has been issued in the name of the plaintiff's husband under Exhibit A20 on 26.05.1971. The payment of “B”-Memo by the plaintiff's husband will clearly indicate that they have admitted the title of the Government and paid the penalty for the illegal occupation of the Government property in the year 1963 and 1971. When the plaintiffs have admitted the title of the defendants in the year 1971, the suit claiming title on the basis of adverse possession has been filed on 09.09.1993 even before the expiry of the period of 30 years. Hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession for the Government poramboke land, which has been used as a poundage by the revenue authorities. 13. The Hon'ble Full Bench of our High Court in a judgment reported in 2015 file or decree 03 1997, has held in as follows: “29. Reverting back to the Sivakasi Region Tax Payers Association's case, in paragraph 28, it was observed that it should not be misunderstood, as if the Division Bench was suggesting that all encroachments should be regularised or encouraged, but the State Government to take a conscious decision, it the land on which there are encroachments for a long period and such land is not required for any public purpose or for the State and a person remaining in adverse possession for more than 30 years acquires such right over the property. The other observations contained in para 30 of the judgment are that the Government Order (G.O.No.854) makes it amply clear, where the environment is not affected in the sense, the area is not in use as lake or water source either natural or artificial and not required for any public use and for the use of the State then only the property can be settled. 30. Thus, on account of the default of the Revenue officials or on account of collusion of official machinery with encroachers can hardly be a premium to justify encroachments. 30. Thus, on account of the default of the Revenue officials or on account of collusion of official machinery with encroachers can hardly be a premium to justify encroachments. The theory of adverse possession, would not stand attracted in such cases”. 14. The second defendant has issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 to the plaintiff calling upon her to show-cause why action should not be initiated under Section 6 of the Act. Notice has been issued on 26.08.1993 and on receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff has rushed to the Civil Court on 09.09.1993. Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 as held as follows: “Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, for the time being in force, no order passed or proceeding taken by any officer of authority or the State Government under this Act, shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit or application and 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. So conferred by or under this Act”. 15. The prayer for permanent injunction by the plaintiff in the present suit, virtually prevents the authorities under the Act from proceeding further under Exhibit A16, notice issued under Section 7 of the Act. Hence, I find that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit or grant a decree for permanent injunction as against the authorities from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. 16. This Court has already arrived at a conclusion that the suit schedule property is not occupied natham, but a Government poramboke used for public purpose as a poundage by the Government authorities. Just because the revenue officials have not initiated any action for a longer period of time, the plaintiff cannot acquire title by adverse possession over a property meant for public use. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2019 9 SCC 488 has held that it is desired that the rights should not accrue for lands reserved for public utility. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff is in encroachment of a property meant for public utility and hence, she cannot acquire title by adverse possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2019 9 SCC 488 has held that it is desired that the rights should not accrue for lands reserved for public utility. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff is in encroachment of a property meant for public utility and hence, she cannot acquire title by adverse possession. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are restored. The second appeal is allowed. No costs.