KRISHNAVENI Vs. SUB COLLECTOR POLLACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession or forbearing the respondents from in any way dispossessing the petitioner from the property bearing T.S.No.703/1E, Pollachi town except in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of S.No.703/4 and 703/5 in Pollachi Town. THE adjacent property is S.No.703/1, which had been subdivided into 703/1-A to 703/1G and the same, as admitted by the petitioner in his affidavit is classified as follows: T.S.No. Extent Classification 703/1-A 39 sq.ft. Municipal drain, 703/1-B 0.4890 sq.ft. Municipal School site 703/1-C 1.4890 sq.ft. Government and Municipal well 703/1-D 0.64 sq.ft. Municipal Lane, 703/1-E 0.4734 sq.ft. Government vacant site. 703/1-F 0.10480 sq.ft. Municipal Lane. 703/1-G 0.2008 sq.ft. Municipal School site. From the above statement, it is very clear that the S.No.703/1-A was classified as Municipal drain; 1-B as Municipal School site; 1-C classified as Government Municipal well; 1-D classified as Municipal Lane; 1-E as Government vacant site; 1-F as Municipal Lane and 1G as Municipal School site.

(3.) THE petitioner's attempt from 1973 to seek the assignment also cannot be said to be a legal demand especially when she is in unauthorised occupation as an encroacher. In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 152 the Apex Court has held that either granting the assignment or providing alternative site for an encroacher will amount to yielding to the pressure of the encroacher for his unlawful act and paying a premium for his illegal act. If the demand of the petitioner is considered on the above principles, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition, especially when her occupation is nothing but an encroachment. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only). Connected W.M.P.No.10819 of 1995 is also dismissed.