Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.23011 of 2025Na.Ka.No.161/2023 issued by sole respondent [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been called in question in the captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity].2.Mr. N.Chinnaraj, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, is before us.3.On the limited point that the sole respondent may not have jurisdiction to issue a Section 7 notice, we issue notice to sole respondent. 4.Mr. K. Suresh, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for sole respondent, very fairly submitted that the sole respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. Learned State counsel also, in his usual fairness, placed before us, the order dated 06.06.2025 made in W.P.No.11712 of 2024 wherein this very Bench has taken a view that Block Development Officer does not have power to issue a Section 7 notice. The said order reads as follows:Page Nos.2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDARW.P.No.11712 of 2024andW.M.P.No.12800 of 2024SeethalakshmiW/o.V.Pavadai Padaiyaatchi... Petitionervs.1.The TahsildarBhuvanagiriBhuvanagiri (TK)Cuddalore District.2.The Block Development OfficerBhuvanagiri (TK)Cuddalore District.3.The Panchayat President,Periyapattu, Periyapattu Village,Bhuvanagiri (TK)Cuddalore (DT).... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned eviction notice dated 30.11.2022 and quash the same, consequently, forbear the respondents herein, their men and subordinates or any other persons claiming through them from in any manner interfering with our peaceful possession and enjoyment from portion of Survey Nos.63/2 and 74/1 at Periyapattu Revenue Village, Bhuvangiri (TK), Cuddalore (DT) without out following the due process of law.For Petitioner :Mr.V.NeethiduraiFor Respondents:Mr.M.S.ArasakumarGovernment Advocate*****Page Nos.4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025O R D E R[Order of the Court was made by M. SUNDAR, J.]Captioned 'Writ Petition' {'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed inter alia assailing a 'terse notice with the seal dated 30.11.2022 issued by R3' {hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.2. Mr.V.Neethidurai, learned counsel, at the outset expresses regret for missing the matter yesterday (to be noted, the captioned WP is listed under the cause list caption 'FOR DISMISAL' today) and tenders an apology and apology is accepted.3. Mr.V.Neethidurai, learned counsel submits that R3 does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.4. Learned State Counsel, who has already accepted notice for respondents, on instructions submits that the impugned notice has been issued 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}. This Court, vide order dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.27887 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.27176 of 2022 has held that the Executive Officer / President of Local Body (Panchayat in this case) does not have jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. A scanned reproduction of the order dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.27887 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.27176 of 2022 is as follows:Page Nos.5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025Page Nos.11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 20255. Learned State Counsel, fairly submits that the captioned matter is directly covered by the aforesaid order.6. 'Sauce to Goose is Sauce to Gander too' and we, therefore interfere with the impugned order and set aside the same on jurisdiction point alone. This means that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.7. We make it clear that it is open to the State to initiate appropriate action by competent authority either under said 1905 Act or under 'the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2007)' {hereinafter 'Tanks Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity}, as the case may be (to be noted, as there is a reference to the land in question as Kuttai i.e., pond we have made it clear that action under Tanks Act also is an option). If proceedings are initiated by competent authority under either one of the aforementioned Statutes, writ petitioner shall be show-caused, given an opportunity and order shall be made, all of which, will be done on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order which has been made only on jurisdiction point.8. Captioned WP is allowed albeit with preservation of rights of both sides in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petition becomes otiose and the same is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.J.,)(H.C.J.,) 06.06.2025'Page Nos.12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 20255.A perusal of Section 7 of said 1905 Act and the scheme of said 1905 Act makes it clear that what applies to the Block Development Officer applies on all fours to the sole respondent too. Therefore, we dislodge the impugned notice on this short point but in the same breath, we preserve all the rights and contentions of the State or appropriate Revenue authorities to initiate proceedings under said 1905 Act again, by issuance of notice by competent authorities. If such a course is adopted, we equally preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner (including the grounds urged in the captioned WP) to respond to such notice under said 1905 Act.6.In the light of the narrative thus far, it is clear that the captioned WP now stands vastly descoped and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel, captioned main WP was taken up in the Admission Board.Page Nos.13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 20257.Sequitur of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far is, captioned main WP is allowed, albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of both sides in the manner alluded to supra. Consequently, W.M.P.No.25841 of 2025 stands disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 26.06.2025cadIndex:Yes/NoN.C.:YesPage Nos.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23011 of 2025M.SUNDAR, J.andHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.cadToThe Executive OfficeElathur Town PanchayathElathurGobichettipalayam T.K.Erode DistrictW.P.No.23011 of 202526.06.2025Page Nos.15/15