Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats Act, 1994 ss. 131, 134
- Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 ss. 131, 134
- Land Encroachment Act
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Special Officer/The Block Development OfficerPanchayat UnionOffice of the BDOPethanaickenpalayam TalukSalem District. ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20017 of 2026__________Page2 of 5Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the…
Judgment
WP.No.20017 of 2026__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20-05-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANWP.No.20017 of 2026and WMP.No.21405 of 2026N.Rajamanikkam..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The District CollectorOffice of CollectorateSalem District.
The Assistant DirectorPanchayat and AuditOffice of the CollectorateSalem District.
The TahsildarOffice of TahsildarPethanaickenpalayam TalukSalem District.
The Special Officer/The Block Development OfficerPanchayat UnionOffice of the BDOPethanaickenpalayam TalukSalem District. ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20017 of 2026__________Page2 of 5Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 14.05.026 submitted in response to the notice dated 11.05.2026 issued under Section 131 and 134 of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats Act, 1994 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s):Mr.A.RajkumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.L.S.M.Hasal FizalAdditional Government PleaderORDER(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has been served with notice under Section 131 & 134 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, by the 4th respondent.
Operative part
It is well settled that neither the Panchayat president nor the Block Development Officer can coercively enforce an eviction order. They can however call upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment in question. If the petitioner fails to comply with the said demand, the only coercive action open to the authorities is to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Tahsildar. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20017 of 2026__________Page3 of 53. As and when the Tahsildhar initiates action under the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioner can very well place all his defences. Leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. We once again clarify that the impugned eviction order cannot be coercively enforced by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (G.R.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) 20-05-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Nodna/rka https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20017 of 2026__________Page4 of 5To1.The District CollectorOffice of CollectorateSalem District.
2. The Assistant DirectorPanchayat and AuditOffice of the CollectorateSalem District. 3. The TahsildarOffice of TahsildarPethanaickenpalayam TalukSalem District. 4. The Special Officer/The Block Development OfficerPanchayat UnionOffice of the BDOPethanaickenpalayam TalukSalem District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.20017 of 2026__________Page5 of 5G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.andV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.dna/rkaWP.No.20017 of 2026and WMP.No.21405 of 202620-05-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats Act, 1994 — ss. 131, 134; Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 — ss. 131, 134; Land Encroachment Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.