✦ High Court of India · 18 Jun 2025

Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 18 Jun 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

18 Jun 2025

Bench

M SUNDAR

Length

3,280 words

Acts & Sections

Chennai III Act 1905 Constitution of India Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994 The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1994

W.P.No.13378 of 20252.The Assistant Director – Panchayat, District Collector's Office, Dharmapuri District – 636 705.3.The Tahsildhar, Pennagaram Revenue Taluk, Dharmapuri – 636 810.4.The Block Development Officer – Village Panchayat, Eriyur Panchayat Union, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 810.5.The Executive Officer (in-charge), Ajjanahalli Village Panchayat, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 810.... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent by and through his Final Notice in Na.Ka.No.272/2023/E4 dated 03.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of their residence in the Survey No. 478 of the Ajjanahalli Revenue Village in the Pennagaram Taluk of the Dharmapuri District. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mukunth, Senior Counselfor Mr.K.ShankarFor Respondents:Mr.T.K.SaravananPage Nos.2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Additional Government PleaderORDER[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]Mr.N.Mukunth, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr.K.Shankar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for all five respondents are before us.2. Adverting to earlier proceedings made in previous listings, learned counsel on both sides submit in unison that the matter is directly and squarely covered by an order dated 05.02.2025 made in W.P.No.3472 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.3850 of 2025 thereat. To be noted, short point is Block Development Officer lacks jurisdiction to make/issue order under Section 131(2) of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21/94).3. In the light of there being no disputation between two sides that the captioned matter is directly and squarely covered by the aforereferred order, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce Page Nos.3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025the order dated 05.02.2025 made in W.P.No.3472 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.3850 of 2025 thereat. We do so and the same is as follows:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.02.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARANDTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.P.No.3472 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.3850 of 2025N. SubramanianPetitionerv1.The District CollectorCollectorateKallakurichi District Kallakurichi 606 2022.The TahsildarChinna Salem TalukSalem Main RoadChinna SalemTamil Nadu 606 2013.The Block Development OfficerChinna SalemSalem Main RoadChinna SalemTamil Nadu 606 2014.The Panchayath PresidentRayappanur VillageChinna SalemTamil NaduRespondentsPage Nos.4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.A1/2478/2024 dated nil on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same.Page Nos.5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025For petitioner Mr. M.B. Mushtaque AhamedFor RR 1 & 2Mr. T.K. SaravananGovernment AdvocateFor RR 3 & 4Mr. T.M. RajangamGovernment AdvocateORDER(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed assailing a notice issued by R4 (Panchayat President, Rayappanur Village) made in October of 2024 bearing reference e/f/vz;/M1-2478-2024 (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity) under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905) (for brevity 'said 1905 Act). 2.When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.B. Mushtaque Ahamed, learned counsel for writ petitioner, submitted that a similar issue came up earlier before this Court in W.P. Nos.1291, 1296 and 1300 of 2025 and this Court, vide a common order dated 22.01.2025, set aside the impugned notices therein on jurisdictional point, i.e., on the point that R5 therein (President, Padavedu Village Panchayat) is not competent to issue impugned notices under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. Page Nos.6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 20253.Issue notice to respondents.4.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for RR 1 and 2 and Mr. T.M. Rajangam, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for RR 3 and 4.5.Learned State counsel for RR 1 and 2 fairly concedes that captioned main WP is directly and squarely covered by aforereferred earlier order dated 22.01.2025 in W.P. Nos.1291, 1296 and 1300 of 2025 and writ miscellaneous petitions thereat.6.The aforereferred order dated 22.01.2025 is reproduced and extracted as follows:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARW.P.Nos.1291, 1296 & 1300 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.1537, 1545 & 1550 of 2025S.VijayakumarS/o.Subramani... Petitionerin W.P.No.1291 of 2025P.PalaniS/o.Ponnusamy... Petitionerin W.P.No.1296 of 2025G.Yasotha... Petitionerin W.P.No.1300 of 2025Vs.Page Nos.7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 20251.The District CollectorVengikkalTiruvannamalaiTiruvannamalai District.2.The TahsildarPolur Taluk OfficePolurTiruvannamalai District.3.The Block Development OfficerPolur Panchayat BlockTiruvannamalai District.4.The Revenue InspectorSanthavasalPolur TalukTiruvannamalai District.5.The PresidentPadavedu Village PanchayatPadavedu, Polur TalukTiruvannamalai District. ... Respondentsin all WPsPrayer :Writ Petition No.1291 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 5th respondent herein vide his impugned notice dated 15.06.2023 issued under Section 7 of the Chennai III Act 1905 and quash the same as highly illegal and further for a direction directing the 2nd respondent herein to survey the lands comprised in S.No.271/B, situated in Padavedu Village and if found proper for dwelling to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in view of the petitioner's representations dated 13.05.2022 and 02.07.2023.Writ Petition No.1296 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 5th respondent in the notice dated 15.06.2023 issued under Section 7 of the Chennai III Act 1905 and quash the same as illegal and further for a direction to survey the lands comprised in S.No.271/B, situated in Padavedu Village and if found proper for dwelling to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in view of the petitioner's representations dated 05.07.2022 and 02.07.2023.Page Nos.8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Writ Petition No.1300 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 5th respondent in the notice dated 15.06.2023 issued under Section 7 of the Chennai III Act 1905 and quash the same as illegal and further for a direction to survey the lands comprised in S.No.271/B, situated in Padavedu Village and if found proper for dwelling to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in view of the petitioner's representations dated 08.08.2022 and 02.07.2023.For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.J.AshokFor Respondents in all WPs:Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleaderassisted byMr.M.S.ArasakumarGovernment AdvocateC O M M O N O R D E R[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]Captioned three main 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of brevity} have been filed assailing three separate notices, all dated 15.06.2023 issued by R5 [The President, Padavedu Village Panchayat, Padavedu, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District] under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} which shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity.2. Notwithstanding very many averments and grounds in the writ affidavit, Mr.J.Ashok, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners predicated his campaign against impugned notices on one point and that one point is that impugned notices have been issued by an authority, who does not have power to issue the notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act.3. Issue notice to respondents.4. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for all respondents.5. Learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that R5 is vested with power to issue notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Page Nos.9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Act.6. Considering the limited scope of the captioned main WPs, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.7. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to record certain facts, trajectory the captioned matters have taken thus far and facts that unfurled in hearing qua captioned WPs and an adumbration in this regard is as follows:(i) The subject matter of impugned notices is 'lands in S.No.271/B, Padavedu Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District' {hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of brevity};(ii) R5 in the captioned main WPs had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.36811 of 2024 with a prayer to mandamus R1 to R4 before us (to be noted, R1 to R4 in the captioned main WPs are R1 to R4 in W.P.No.36811 of 2024 also) to remove alleged encroachment/s in said lands on the ground that the said lands have been classified as 'Kuttai Poromboke'. To be noted, writ petitioner in captioned W.P.No.1291 of 2025 [S.Vijayakumar, Son of Subramani], writ petitioner in W.P.No.1296 of 2025 [P.Palani, Son of Ponnusamy] and writ petitioner in W.P.No.1300 of 2025 [G.Yasotha] are R11, R9 and R18 respectively in W.P.No.36811 of 2024. This W.P.No.36811 of 2024 came to be disposed of by this Court in and by an order dated 04.12.2024 which reads as follows:Page Nos.10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Page Nos.11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Page Nos.12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Page Nos.13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Page Nos.14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Page Nos.15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025Page Nos.16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025(iii) Aforementioned 04.12.2024 order of this Court speaks for itself and it now comes to light that 'notices already issued' are inter alia impugned notices;(iv) Impugned notices were not brought to the notice of this Court when 04.12.2024 order was made though it was submitted that notices have already been issued and that notices already issued were notices under Section 131(2) of 'the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}. Therefore, this Court, in paragraph No.8 of afore-referred 04.12.2024 order, after recording the submission that notices have already been issued, in paragraph No.9, directed notices under said 1905 Act be issued by R2 but it now comes to light that notices had already been issued under said 1905 Act and that the same have been issued by R5;(v) It is also submitted that writ petitioners have responded to impugned notices vide identical responses, all dated 02.07.2023. To be noted, responses placed before us are unsigned and there are no acknowledgments. One of the identical responses i.e., response dated 02.07.2023 in the first captioned WP namely, W.P.No.1291 of 2025 is as follows:Page Nos.17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 20258. A careful perusal of the aforementioned narrative which captures facts, trajectory thus far and what unfurls from the case files, brings to light that as early as in July of 2023 (02.07.2023), writ petitioners have responded to impugned notices and have specifically raised the point that R5 cannot issue the impugned notices and that such a plea is taken on legal advice.9. Be that as it may, it is categorically submitted by learned counsel for writ petitioners in all three captioned WPs that after writ petitioners' identical responses dated 02.07.2023 to impugned notices, no orders have been made under Section 6 of said 1905 Act. This categoric submission is recorded.10. We find from our research that a similar question arose in W.P.(MD)No.16494 of 2023 [Viswanathan Vs. District Collector and others] and a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court, in and by an order dated 10.07.2023, has recorded the stated position of learned State Counsel made on instructions that there is no Government Order specifically authorizing Block Development Officer [BDO] or Village Panchayat President to initiate action under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. It appears that Viswanathan case has been given a legal quietus as we find from our further research that the matter does not appear to have been carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court.11. We are informed by learned Special Government Pleader that the tenure of office of R5 has also lapsed on 05.01.2025.12. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to capture the obtaining legal position or in other words, the obtaining Section 7 of said 1905 Act. Section 7 of said 1905 Act reads as follows:Page Nos.18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025'7. Prior notice to person in occupation.- Before taking proceedings under section 6, the Collector or Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any authorized officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an authorised officer) (hereinafter referred to as the 'specified officer') as the case may be, shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorised occupation of land being the property of Government a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under section 6.Such notice shall be served in the manner prescribed in section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864), or in such other manner as the State Government by rules or orders under section 8 may direct:Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in the case of any person unauthorisedly occupying any land, if he has been previously evicted from such land under section 6 or if he has previously vacated such land voluntarily after the receipt of a notice under section 5-B or under this section: Provided further that where the notice under this section is caused to be served by any Revenue Inspector or any specified officer, he shall require the person reputed to be in unauthorised occupation of the land to show cause against such notice to the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised officer having jurisdiction, as the case may be, and shall also make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised officer having jurisdiction, as the case may be.'{putting in a portion of extract in different font and underlining of same isby this Court for ease of reference}Page Nos.19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 202513. In the aforesaid Section 7 of said 1905 Act, the expression 'any other officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an authorised officer) (hereinafter referred to as the "specified officer"), as the case may be', was substituted in place of 'any officer of the Highways Department, not below the rank of a Section Officer and not being an authorised officer'. This is in and by way of Amendment Act captioned 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act No.20 of 1975)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Amendment Act' for the sake of brevity}. We find that said 1905 Amendment Act is a conditional legislation. This is vide sub-section (2) of Section 1 which reads as follows:'1. Short title and commencement - (1) ...................(2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint.'14. The said 1905 Amendment Act received assent of President on 02.07.1975, it was published in Gazette on 08.07.1975 and it kicked in (came into force) on and from 01.10.1976.15. Be that as it may, following Viswanathan case supra, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned notices but we make it clear that all rights and contentions of R2 [The Thasildar, Polur Taluk Office, Tiruvannamalai District] are preserved for issuing fresh notice/s under Section 7 of said 1905 Act.16. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that R2 will issue fresh notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act as expeditiously as the official business of R2 would permit but in any event within one week from today i.e., by 29.01.2025. This submission of learned Special Government Pleader is recorded.17. When Section 7 notice is issued by R2, it is open to writ petitioners to send signed responses under due acknowledgment (if so advised and if so desired) within the time specified therein. Thereafter, an order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act or other proceedings as adumbrated in said 1905 Act shall follow.18. Learned Special Government Pleader, adverting to earlier order dated 04.12.2024 and current scenario, submits that the entire exercise will be completed as expeditiously as the business of R2 would permit but in any event within eight weeks from today i.e., on or before 19.03.2025.19. We make it clear that impugned notices are set aside solely on lack of jurisdiction (qua R5) point and we are not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter i.e., on the merits of encroachment or Page Nos.20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025contra contention of writ petitioners. Therefore, when fresh Section 7 notices are issued, the matter will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by any observation made in this order.Captioned WPs are disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, Writ Miscellaneous Petitions thereat are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.)(K.R.S., J.) 22.01.2025Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking ordermkP.S. Though captioned WPs are disposed of, Registry is directed to list the captioned WPs under the cause list caption 'FOR REPORTING COMPLIANCE' on 02.04.2025.'7.In the light of the stated position of the learned State counsel for RR 1 and 2, captioned main WP is allowed recording the further stated position of the learned State counsel for RR 1 and 2 that R2 will now issue a fresh Section 7 notice as expeditiously as the official business of R2 would permit but in any event within one week from today, i.e., 12.02.2025, it is open to writ petitioner to respond to Section 7 notice and thereafter, an order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act shall follow. Learned counsel further submits that the entire exercise will be completed as expeditiously as the business of official respondents would permit but in any event within eight weeks from today, i.e., by 02.04.2025.8.As done in the earlier order, we make it clear that impugned notice is set aside solely on the lack of jurisdiction (qua R4) point and therefore, we are not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter Page Nos.21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025i.e., on the merits of alleged encroachment or contra contention of writ petitioner. Ergo, when a fresh Section 7 notice is issued by R2, matter will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by any observation made in this order.9.Captioned WP is allowed as alluded to supra albeit with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition thereat is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)05.02.2025Index : Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NocadP.S.: Though captioned WP is disposed of, Registry is directed to list the captioned WP under the cause list caption 'FOR REPORTING COMPLIANCE' on 09.04.2025.'4. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is allowed albeit with all observations contained in 05.02.2025 order made in W.P.No.3472 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.3850 of 2025 thereat. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petitions (WMPs) thereat are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.,J.)(H.C.,J.) 18.06.2025Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Page Nos.22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025mmiTo1.The District Collector, District Collectors Office, Dharmapuri District – 636 705.2.The Assistant Director – Panchayat, District Collectors Office, Dharmapuri District – 636 705.3.The Tahsildhar, Pennagaram Revenue Taluk, Dharmapuri – 636 810.4.The Block Development Officer – Village Panchayat, Eriyur Panchayat Union, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 810.5.The Executive Officer (in-charge), Ajjanahalli Village Panchayat, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 810.Page Nos.23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13378 of 2025M.SUNDAR, J.,andHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,mmiW.P.No.13378 of 202518.06.2025Page Nos.24/24

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Chennai III Act 1905