Rs 25,000 costs imposed on encroacher of government land

Justice S Vaidyanathan, while disposing of the second appeal filed by S Arulselvam of Kancheepuram, that even if he is found to have encroached upon any part of the government property, he cannot be evicted or dispossessed except in the manner contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, said, “For encroachment on public land, it is not necessary that the government should contest in the civil court. If there is ample evidence, they can take their defence in the appeal filed by the encroacher and pursuant to the order of the court, the encroachment can be removed.” The judge also held, “The parties, after encroaching, cannot contend that the government land(s) are Natham lands. Under the guise of Natham land, the government’s land cannot be encroached upon or usurped by the villagers.”

Also holding that in this case, the concurrent findings by the trial and appellate courts could not be legally upset by this court, Justice Vaidyanathan said, “I find that there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal for consideration.”

Directing the appellant to pay the cost imposed to the Blind School in Poonamallee, Chennai, within a month, the judge came down on such encroachers saying, “When a father or a mother, who is not the land owner of a property, encroaches upon a land that does not belong to them, would it not amount to a crime and when it is a crime, what kind of value that they can teach and instill in their children. Is there anything wrong in telling the children that their parents are thieves/land grabbers?” he asked.