The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed challenging the notice in Form III issued under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007.
The Petition has been filed by S. Logasundaram.
P. Vasudevan, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the land in question belongs to the petitioner, yet, without serving notices in Form-I, Form-II and Form-III to him, the impugned notice was served on his tenant Mrs Kannagi without following the law. It is more so when the petitioner preferred a suit to seek injunction earlier against the respondents and is pending before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. Since suit was preferred by the petitioner in 2020, the respondents could not have taken action against his tenant. Rather, they should have waited for the disposal of the suit.
It is further submitted that the land in question belongs to his father as would be evident from the tax payment receipt and the other documents produced by the petitioner. Yet, ignoring the aforesaid, action has been initiated in an illegal manner. Therefore, the petition has been filed to protect the petitioner from the aforesaid.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N. Mala having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents on record observed that there is nothing on record to prove the title of the petitioner in the land in question, for which notice in Form-III of the Act of 2007 has been given. Notice in Form-III has not been given to the petitioner, but it has been given to one Mrs Kannagi, wife of Murugan. However, claiming himself to be the rightful owner of the land in question, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
To prove the title of the land in question, nothing has been produced other than the tax receipt, which cannot confirm the title in favour of the petitioner. It is a fact that though the suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner, despite its filing in the year 2020, no injunction has been granted. Thus mere pendency of the suit does not mean that the respondents are restrained from taking action in accordance with law, further observed the Bench.
The Court held that it is also a fact that Form-III has been given in respect of Survey No.176, which is a waterbody and nothing has been produced on record to show that notice has not been issued for the waterbody. The petitioner has raised factual issues about the location of the land in question. The Court cannot ascertain the location of the land, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is further a fact that though the petitioner alleges renting out the land to the person whom notice in Form-III has been given, a copy of the lease deed has not been produced. Thus, in the absence of any document to show the right of the petitioner in the land in question and that too a legal document, the Court did not accept the challenge to the notice issued in Form-III to a person, other than the petitioner.