✦ High Court of India · 25 Mar 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 25 Mar 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

25 Mar 2025

Bench

K GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

Length

1,470 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905

W.P. No.26770 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 25.03.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR andTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADIW.P.No.26770 of 2021 & W.M.P.No.28205 of 2021RamasamyPetitionervs.1.The District CollectorNamakkal District2.The TahsildarRasipuram TalukNamakkal District3.The Revenue InspectorRasipuram TalukNamakkal District4.S. BalasubrmanaiamRespondents(R4 impleaded today vide order passed in W.M.P.No.1338 of 2025)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in relation to the impugned notice dated 11.11.2021 issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, pertaining to the writ petitioner's agricultural land situate in Rasipuram Page Nos.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021Town, Ward – A, Block 1, comprised in T.S.No.2/10, measuring an extent of 0.0453.0 sq. mt. out of a total extent of 0.1040.0 sq. mt. and quash the same as the petitioner's land is a patta land.For petitionerMr. R. VivekFor RR 1 to 3Mr. T.K. SaravananAdditional Government PleaderFor R4Mr. P. MathivananORDER[made by K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.]This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 11.11.2021 issued by the third respondent under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity “the LE Act”) on the ground that the land in question viz., the land measuring an extent of 0.0453.0 sq. mt. out of 0.1040.0 sq. mt. in T.S. No.2/10, Block -1, Ward-A, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, (for short “the said land”) is the writ petitioner's patta land.2.The case of the writ petitioner is that the said land was purchased by his father in the year 1965 and after his demise, the writ petitioner inherited the same and patta was transferred to his name in Page Nos.2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021the year 2006; since then, he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said land; the owners of the writ petitioner's adjacent land use his patta land in T.S.No.2/2010 as a pathway measuring a width of about 10 ft. and keeping in mind their interest, he permitted them to use his patta land as a pathway; taking advantage of the same, two persons, viz., Dhanasekaran and Vishwanathan, purchasers of adjacent lands, manipulated the town survey register pertaining to the land in T.S.No.2/2010 as if the same is classified as epytpay; tz;og; ghij; pursuant thereto, the district revenue officials, on 06.01.2021, attempted to remove the coconut trees with the help of an earthmover in order to widen the 10 ft. pathway to 25 ft. black metal road; hence, the writ petitioner and his son Dhanapal had to file a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2021 before the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram, against the official respondents and aforereferred Dhanasekaran and Vishwanathan seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, i.e., to restrain the defendants from changing the physical features of the said pathway; pending suit, the third respondent, viz., Revenue Inspector, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal Ditrict, issued the show cause notice dated 11.11.2021 stating that the writ petitioner has encroached the land comprised in Page Nos.3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021T.S.No.2/2010 measuring an extent of 0.0453.10 sq. m. and that the same has been classified as epytpay; tz;og; ghij belonging to the Government and further directing the writ petitioner to vacate the same on or before 30.11.2021; soon thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.11.2021 to the respondents, which has not evoked any response; while so, challenging the notice dated 11.11.2021 issued under Section 7 of the LE Act, this writ petition has been filed.3.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that since the subject matter of the writ petition is a land belonging to the Government and the same has been classified as epytpay; tz;og; ghij in the revenue records, the impugned notice came to be issued.4.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.5.The sheet anchor case of the writ petitioner is that the said land is his patta land and with his permission, the adjacent land Page Nos.4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021owners are using the same as access road to their lands and the same has not been classified as epytpay; tz;og; ghij in the TSLR issued in the year 2018. Per contra, it is the specific stand of the official respondents that the said land has been classified as a epytpay; tz;og; ghij and it belongs to the Government.6.Such being the case, i.e., since a disputed question of fact is involved, this Court is of the view that this is a matter which has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court for a decision as to whether the said land is the writ petitioner’s patta land or is a epytpay; tz;og; ghij as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader. Further, when this Court went into e-Court's website to ascertain the stage of O.S.No.8 of 2021, it came to light that the said suit is in an advanced stage of hearing.7.In such perspective of the matter, the following order is made:i.The writ petitioner shall work out his remedy in the pending suit, viz., O.S.No.8 of 2021 which shall be Page Nos.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021decided by the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram, on its own merits and in accordance with law and not being influenced by this order, as expeditiously as the board of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram, permits, inasmuch as O.S.No.8 of 2021 is in its advanced stage of hearing;ii.The fourth respondent, who claims to be one of the users of T.S.No.2/2010 as epytpay; tz;og; ghij shall file a petition in O.S.No.8 of 2021 seeking to implead himself as a party defendant, if so advised;iii.As the impugned notice is only a show cause notice, it is open to the writ petitioner to send a reply to the same drawing the attention of authority/ies concerned that the suit is pending consideration and it will be open to such authorities concerned to keep the impugned notice in abeyance with a rider that in the event of the suit being dismissed, the notice issued under Section 7 of the LE Act can be resuscitated;Page Nos.6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021iv.Needless to state, in respect of survey numbers adjacent to T.S.No.2/10, if there is any encroachment, the State shall proceed further in accordance with law.With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)25.03.2025cadIndex:Yes/NoNC:Yes/NoPage Nos.7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021M.SUNDAR, J.andK. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.cadTo:1.The District CollectorNamakkal District2.The TahsildarRasipuram TalukNamakkal District3.The Revenue InspectorRasipuram TalukNamakkal District4.The District MunsifRasipuramNamakkal DistrictW.P. No.26770 of 202125.03.2025Page Nos.8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021ADDENDUMW.P.No.26770 of 2021M.SUNDAR, J.andK. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.(Order of the Court was made by K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.)Captioned matter is listed today under the cause list caption 'FOR BEING MENTIONED' at the instance of Mr. P. Mathivanan, learned counsel on record for impleading petitioners in W.M.P. Nos.1339, 1342 and 1345 of 2025 in W.P. No.26770 of 2021, inasmuch as, though the said impleading petitions were ordered on 25.03.2025 (date on which captioned main writ petition was disposed of), the impleading petitioners who were ordered to be impleaded in the captioned main writ petition as respondents 5 to 7, were not shown in the array of parties in the cause title of the order dated 25.03.2025. 2.Today, Mr. R. Vivek, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P. Mathivanan, learned counsel for Page Nos.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021impleaded respondent no.4, who is also counsel on record for impleaded respondents 5 to 7, are before us.3.The aforereferred counsel on either side agreed to have the aforementioned correction made. In this view of the matter, the petitioners in W.M.P. Nos.1339, 1342 and 1345 of 2025, viz., P. Sathish, Dr. Kumaravel Ramasamy and K. Jayapal who had already been ordered to be impleaded as respondents 5,6 and 7 respectively, shall be shown in the array of parties as respondents 5, 6 and 7 respectively, in the order dated 25.03.2025. As a consequence, paragraph 7 (ii) of the order dated 25.03.2025 shall stand substituted as under:The respondents 4 to 7, who claim to be users of T.S.No.2/2010 as epytpay; tz;og; ghij shall file a petition in O.S.No.8 of 2021 seeking to implead themselves as party defendants, if so advised.Page Nos.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 20214.In all other aspects, the order dated 25.03.2025 remains the same. Therefore, this order will now be made as 'Addendum' and Corrigendum / Erratum to 25.03.2025 order already pronounced in open court and already uploaded. This order will now be uploaded as 'ADDENDUM' to / along with order made by this Court on 25.03.2025 and Registry is directed to carry out necessary and consequential corrections.(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)12.09.2025cadPage Nos.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26770 of 2021M.SUNDAR, J.andK. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.cadW.P. No.26770 of 202112.09.2025Page Nos.12/12

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