http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SOWRASHTRA VIPRA SABHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE NAMAKKAL MUNICIPALITY & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik      S.  Sivasubramaniam,   Sr.  Adv.,  R.  Nedumaran,  V.G. Pragasam, Advs. with him for the appellant      R. Mohan,  Sr. Adv.  and T. Raja, Adv. with him for the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras, mad on September 1, 1996 in SA No.2235/83.      The appellant had filed a suit for declaration of title and for  perpetual injunction.  The contention raised by the appellant was  that the  property being  an  estate  he  has perfected his  title thereto. The case of the respondents is that it  is a  Pavadi land  and after  the abolition  of the estate,  it   stood  vested  in  the  State  free  from  all encumbrances. All  the courts  below have concurrently found that the  appellant has  no title to the property but he was in possession  of the property. Accordingly, a direction was given to  have him ejected in accordance with law. After the judgment was  rendered by  the High  Court, the  notice  was given to the appellant on September 1, 1995 and they refused to receive  the notice. As a result, on 2.9.1995, notice was served on  the appellant by affixture and possession thereof was taken on 9.9.1995 under the provisions of Section 339(2) of the  Tamil Nadu Municipal Act. Thus the land stood vested in the  State after  due ejectment  by the  appellant. It is stated that  it is  the part of the public bus stand and the site in  question and  that the public passenger buses enter through it.  A plan  was filed in that behalf marking in red the portion  which is  part of  the bus  stand. Under  these circumstances, we  do not think that it is a case warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2