✦ High Court of India · 19 Aug 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 19 Aug 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

19 Aug 2025

Bench

M SUNDAR

Length

2,261 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act 1958 Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905

Cited in this judgment

(2011) 3 SCC 1

W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.08.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDARW.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021andW.M.P.Nos.26754 & 26755 of 2021R.NageswaranS/o.P.Ramasamy... Petitioner in W.P.No.25338/2021K.RamasamyS/o.Kuppusamy... Petitionerin W.P.No.25339/2021vs.1.The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner ofLand Administration Department2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, ChepaukChennai-600 005.2.The District CollectorTirupur DistrictDistrict Collector OfficeKaruppa GondanpalayamTiruppur - 641 604.Page Nos.1/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 20213.The Sub-CollectorOffice of the Sub-CollectorState Highway No.21, Pollachi RoadKongu Nagar,Dharapuram - 638 657.4.The District Revenue OfficerDharapuram TalukTiruppur District.5.The Special Thasildhar / The Special OfficerLand Acquisition DepartmentDistrict Collector OfficeKaruppa GondanpalayamTirupur - 641 604.6.The TahsildarNandhavanam Palayam VillageTaluk OfficePeriakaliamman KoilDharapuram - 638 656.7.The Revenue InspectorOffice of the Revenue InspectorKundadam, Dharapuram TalukTiruppur District - 638 702.8.The Village Administrative OfficerNandavanam Palayam VillageKundadam (via), Dharapuram TalukTiruppur District - 638 702.... RespondentsWrit Petition No.25338 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to impugned notices issued by the 7th respondent both dated Page Nos.2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 202121.10.2021 with respect to S.No.1003/3 and S.No.1004/2 situate in Nandhavanam Palayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District and quash the same.Writ Petition No.25339 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to impugned notice issued by the 7th respondent dated 21.10.2021 with respect to S.No.1023/1 situate in Nandhavanam Palayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District and quash the same.For Petitioner in both WPs :Mr.A.S.BaalajiFor Respondents in both WPs :Mr.T.K.SaravananAdditional Government Pleader*****C O M M O N O R D E R[Order of the Court was made by M. SUNDAR, J.]This common order will now govern the captioned two main 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} and captioned two 'Writ Miscellaneous Petitions' {hereinafter 'WMPs' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} thereat.Page Nos.3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 20212. Mr.A.S.Baalaji, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for all the respondents in both WPs are before us.3. Captioned main WPs were taken up with the consent of both sides.4. In both WPs, identical notices both signed by R7 [The Revenue Inspector, Office of the Revenue Inspector, Kundadam, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District - 638 702] on 21.10.2021 have been assailed. These notices shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. Scanned reproduction of impugned notices are as follows:Page Nos.4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021Two impugned notices in W.P.No.25338 of 2021:Page Nos.5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021Page Nos.6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021Impugned notice in W.P.No.25339 of 2021:Page Nos.7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 20215. Though impugned notices are addressed to Mr.R.Nageswaran, who is writ petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2021, learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that Mr.R.Nageswaran is staking claim for lands which are subject matter of impugned notices. K.Ramasamy has filed W.P.No.25339 of 2021.6. A careful perusal of impugned notices brings to light that the same have been issued by R7 alleging that 'lands comprised in S.Nos.1003/3, 1004/2 and 1023/1 situate in Nandavanampalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District' {hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} are Bhoomidhan lands, Bhoomidhan lands cannot be used by anyone other than beneficiaries and on further grounds that said lands have not been distributed to noticee by Bhoomidhan Board.7. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submitted that said lands are private lands / patta lands and neither Nageswaran nor K.Ramasamy have donated said lands to Bhoomidhan Board.8. Be that as it may, as regards Bhoomidhan lands, we find that 'the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1958)' {hereinafter 'Bhoodan Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} Page Nos.8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021comes into play. The scheme of Bhoodan Act and the constitution of authorities thereunder was dealt with by this Court in Association for Sarva Seva Forms case [Association for Sarva Seva Forms Vs. The Collector and others] being order dated 04.06.2025 in W.P.No.18043 of 2025 reported in Neutral Citation of Madras High Court in 2025:MHC:1327. Relevant paragraphs are paragraph Nos.4 to 7 & 9 which read as follows:'4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R1 to R4 and submits that lands which are subject matter of said representation (which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said lands') are governed by the 'Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1958)' (hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity).5. A careful perusal of said Act brings to light that the term 'State Board' has been defined vide Section 2(i) which reads as follows:2.Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -(a) ......(b) ......(c) ......(d) ......(e) ......(i) ......(ii) ......(ee) .......(f) .......(g) ......(h) ......(i) 'State Board' means the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board established under Section 3.Page Nos.9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 20216. Thereafter, Section 3 is of significance and the same reads as follows:3.Establishment and incorporation of State Board- The duty of carrying out the provisions of this Act, shall, subject to the restrictions, conditions and limitations therein contained be vested in a Board to be called 'The Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board'.From hereon and henceforth we shall refer to the 'State Board' as 'said Board' for convenience.7. Learned State counsel submits that in and vide G.O.Ms.No.493 Revenue (Ni.Ci.1(1)) Department dated 23.12.2009 a 15 Member Board has been constituted. We find that the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005 is Member Secretary and we also notice from sub-section (2) of Section 3 of said Act that said Board is a body corporate. Therefore, we suo motu implead The Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Board represented by its Member Secretary i.e., Commissioner of Land Reforms, 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 as R5. Learned State counsel Mr.T.K.Saravanan (Additional Government Pleader) accepts notice for R5 too.8. ...........................9. This Court also notices that Section 28 of said Act vests in the Government rule making power, to be noted Government has been defined vide Section 2(c), which reads as follows:'2.Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -(a) ......(b) ......(c) 'Government' means the State Government' '9. Learned State Counsel submitted to the contrary i.e., that said lands are Bhoomidhan lands. This turns heavily on facts and documents.Page Nos.10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 202110. Be that as it may, we find that Section 27 of Bhoodan Act vests the State Board with power to make Regulation and Section 28 of Bhoodan Act vests the Government with power to make Rules. It is not clear as to whether the Board has made any Regulations but the adumbration of the purpose for which Regulations can be made by the Board vide sub-section (2) of Section 27 of Bhoodan Act, prima facie comes across as an adumbration which does not provide for dealing with the Bhoomidhan lands which are allegedly in occupation of persons other than beneficiaries.11. Be that as it may, as regards Section 28, as would be evident from paragraph No.10 of Association for Sarva Seva Forms case, State Government has made Rules and the Rules are titled as 'the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhan Yagna Rules, 1959' {hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity}. A perusal of said Rules brings to light that there is no specific provision to deal with a scenario as the one in the cases on hand. Therefore, in the light of the disputation and contestation as regards nature of said lands which turns heavily on facts and documents, we deem it appropriate to write that the impugned notices shall now be treated as notices under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 Page Nos.11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021(Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}. The reason is, Section 2 of said 1905 Act makes it clear that all lands with the exception of adumbration (a) to (e) thereat will fall under the sweep of the Act. To be noted, learned counsel for writ petitioners contends that these are lands over which the writ petitioners have proprietary rights. This question is left open and all rights of the writ petitioners are preserved.12. The noticees / writ petitioners i.e., Mr.Nageswaran and Mr.K.Ramasamy shall now respond to impugned notices within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 02.09.2025. Thereafter, orders will have to be made under Section 6 of said 1905 Act. If orders to be made under Section 6 of said 1905 Act is in favour of the writ petitioners, that would be the curtains on the matter and if that not be so, writ petitioners will have the rights of filing an appeal under Section 10 of said 1905 Act followed by revision under Section 10-A of said 1905 Act. 13. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to write that this Court, in C.Gopinathan case reported in 2025:MHC:1162 (order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.8355 and 8357 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.8324 and 8237 of 2022 thereat), respectfully following Girnar principle, i.e., declaration of law Page Nos.12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. Girnar principle is that if a statute provides for a complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by that law and its dependence on other legislations is either absent or minimal, such a statute is a self contained Code. 14. The ecosystem of said 1905 Act, i.e., the purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act is to lay down procedure for eviction of encroachment of lands belonging to the Government. As regards said 1905 Act, inter alia, there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order under section 6 (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable. Section 10 is the appeal provision and inter-alia District Collector is the appellate authority and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. This order of Revisional Authority is obviously subject to judicial review. This is the legal architecture of the machinery put in place Page Nos.13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act. Such a three-tier machinery has been put in place to check unauthorised occupation of lands which are the properties of the Government (besides imposition of penal or prohibitory assessment or charge), after giving adequate and ample opportunity to a person who is alleged to be in occupation of public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, tanks and such other properties of Government. 15. The purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act and the architecture of the machinery put in place to achieve the same when tested on the touchstone of Girnar principle leaves us with the view that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code which provides for complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved with no dependence on other legislations or at the highest minimal dependence on other legislations. Suffice to say that said 1905 Act is clearly a self-contained Code.16. The above means that writ petitioners' response to impugned notices (construing the same as notices under Section 7 of said 1905 Act) shall now proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by instant order. For this purpose, all questions are left open. Page Nos.14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021Before we conclude, we deem it appropriate to write that this is a case where we would have interfered on the jurisdiction point but considering that the Bhoodan Act appears to come into play, we exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and write that the impugned notices shall be construed as show cause notices preserving all rights and contentions of writ petitioners so that the writ petitioners are given adequate and ample opportunity. To be noted, coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be only subject to and depending on the orders to be made under said 1905 Act.Captioned WPs are disposed of albeit with preservation of rights and contentions in the aforesaid manner. In the light of what we have stated regarding coercive action, captioned WMPs become otiose and the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S.J.,)(H.C.J.,) 19.08.2025Index : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NoSpeaking / Non-speakingmkToPage Nos.15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 20211.The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner ofLand Administration Department2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, ChepaukChennai-600 005.2.The District CollectorTirupur DistrictDistrict Collector OfficeKaruppa GondanpalayamTiruppur - 641 604.3.The Sub-CollectorOffice of the Sub-CollectorState Highway No.21, Pollachi RoadKongu Nagar,Dharapuram - 638 657.4.The District Revenue OfficerDharapuram TalukTiruppur District.5.The Special Thasildhar / The Special OfficerLand Acquisition DepartmentDistrict Collector OfficeKaruppa GondanpalayamTirupur - 641 604.6.The TahsildarNandhavanam Palayam VillageTaluk OfficePeriakaliamman KoilDharapuram - 638 656.7.The Revenue InspectorOffice of the Revenue InspectorKundadam, Dharapuram TalukTiruppur District - 638 702.8.The Village Administrative OfficerNandavanam Palayam VillageKundadam (via), Dharapuram TalukTiruppur District - 638 702.Page Nos.16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 2021M.SUNDAR, J.,andHEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,mkW.P.Nos.25338 & 25339 of 202119.08.2025Page Nos.17/17

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 Constitution of India