A JAFFARULLAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the notice issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 25.04.2018 and to quash the same.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner has been served with a notice by the third respondent in respect of the premises under his occupation. The petitioner is running Nilgiri Agro Agencies at Door Nos.6 & 7 at V.P.Street, Coonor. Admittedly, the property belongs to Arulmigu Sivasubramaniaswami Thirukovil, V.P.Street, Coonoor, The Nilgiris. There is no dispute in respect of the title or ownership of the property and the third respondent/temple is the owner of the property. The petitioner claims that he is regularly paying rent to the temple. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Executive Officer has no authority to issue any such notice of eviction. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the writ petitioner is an encroacher. There is no lease or licence has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner and he is in illegal occupation. Even on a perusal of the entire typed set of papers filed in support of the present writ petition, it is seen that only two documents are enclosed in the typed set of papers. The first document dated 010.2017, is the rental receipt issued by the Executive Officer and the second document is the impugned notice dated 25.04.2018. The writ petitioner has not filed even a single document to show that he is having a valid lease or licence granted by the competent authority of the HR & CE Department. In the absence of any such lease/licence, the persons, who are in occupation of the temple property have to be treated as encroachers. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the action initiated against the writ petitioner.