In view of the fact that the appellant had the benefit of the interim order during the pendency of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal, the appellant is permitted to use the same as Padipagam till final order/decision being taken by the Government as directed above.ħ. If any such representation is made by the petitioner/appellant, the first respondent herein is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner/appellant. Taking note of the purpose/object for which the petitioner/appellant seeks permission, we permit the petitioner/appellant to make a representation to the first respondent highlighting their stand, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is brought to our notice that the first respondent-Government is the appropriate authority either to grant permission or to assign the land in favour of the petitioner/appellant.
The above mentioned relevant aspects including the dismissal of the suit, have not been considered by the learned single Judge.Ħ. In view of the specific stand taken before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, we are satisfied that the Executive Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit is not justified in sending letter dated, calling upon the petitioner/appellant to evict from the encroached portion. It is also stated that eviction has to be carried out only by the Corporation, Coimbatore. It is seen from the counter affidavit that the Housing Board has no intention to evict the petitioner/appellant(plaintiff therein). We have verified the stand taken by the Executive Officer of the Coimbatore Housing Unit, who filed a counter statement before the District Munsif, Coimbatore. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant by drawing our attention to the stand taken by the second respondent herein-Coimbatore Housing Unit in the suit, particularly, in the application for injunction, submitted that as their suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, the second respondent is not justified in asking the petitioner/appellant to vacate and hand over the encroached area.ĥ. The learned single Judge, by referring O.S.No.1303 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, and finding that the relief cannot granted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has dismissed their writ petition, hence the present writ appeal.Ĥ. The said proceeding was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.13208 of 1995. It is further brought to our notice that after dismissal of the suit, the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, TATABAD, Coimbatore, by his letter dated, directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the encroached portion before 5.00 p.m. Based on the objection raised by the Coimbatore Housing Unit, it is stated that the said suit was dismissed.
It is seen that the appellant-Padippagam has filed a Civil suit in O.S.No.1303 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, praying for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, officials, agents and the persons claiming through them from evicting the petitioner/appellant from the suit property. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents.ģ.
Thanthai Periyar Padipagam, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated made in W.P.No.13208 of 1995, has filed the above writ appeal.Ģ. (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
0 kommentar(er)
