High Court · 2025

W.P. No.31597 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.08.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELW.P.No.31597 of 2025 and W.M.P Nos.35403 of 2025T. RamamoorthyPetitionervs.1.The District CollectorCollectorate BuildingsSalem, Tamil Nadu2.The District Revenue OfficerDistrict Collectorate BuildingsSalem3.The Assistant CommissionerHindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Salem4.The TahsildarVazhapadi Taluk OfficerSalem District5.The Revenue InspectorVazhapadi TalukSalem District6.The Joint CommissionerHindu Religious & Charitable Endowments DepartmentKottai Mariamman TempleFort Salem 636 001Respondents(R6 suo motu impleaded vide instant order)1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 2025Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 08.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2025 seeking issuance of patta in respect of land in Old Survey No.176/2 and New Survey No.349/15 located in Belur Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.For petitioner Mr. N. UmapathiFor RR 1,2,4 & 5Mr. T.K. SaravananAddl. Govt. PleaderFor RR 3 & 6Mr. N.R.R. Arun NatarajanSpecial Govt. Pleader-HR & CEORDER(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)Subject matter of captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] is constituted by two parcels of land, 'one situate in S.No.349/15 and another situate in S.No.349/31, both in Pelur Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District' [collectively 'said lands' and individually 'I parcel of land' and 'II parcel of land' [for the sake of convenience and clarity].2.Writ petitioner was earlier visited with a notice under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 20251905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] being a notice dated 21.07.2025 issued by fifth respondent (Revenue Inspector). This earlier notice, though styled as one under Section 7 of said 1905 Act, did not show cause the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.28858 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.32374 of 2025 thereat which came to be disposed of by this Court in and by order dated 06.08.2025 (recording the stated position of learned State counsel) and this order reads as follows:'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.08.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMARW.P.No.28858 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.32374 of 2025T. RamamoorthyPetitionervs.1.The District CollectorCollectorate BuildingsSalem, Tamil Nadu2.The District Revenue OfficerDistrict Collectorate BuildingsSalem3.The Revenue Divisional OfficerNear Fire StationSuramangalamSalem4.The TahsildarVazhapadi Taluk OfficeSalem District5.The Revenue InspectorVazhapadi TalukSalem DistrictRespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 21.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2025 seeking for issuance of a patta in respect of land in Old Survey No.176/2 and New Survey No.349/15, located in Belur Village, 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 2025Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.For petitionerMr. N. UmapathiFor respondentsMr. T.K. SaravananAdditional Govt. Pleader- - - - -ORDER(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)Captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed assailing 'a notice signed on 21.07.2025 by fifth respondent - Revenue Inspector' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Scanned reproduction of the impugned order and a clean copy of the same, as placed before us, is as follows:4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 20252.Notwithstanding myriad grounds raised in the captioned main WP, Mr. N. Umapathi, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, predicates his campaign against the impugned notice on the point that though the caption to the impugned notice issued by fifth respondent (Revenue Inspector) says that it 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 convenience and clarity], it directly calls upon the writ petitioner to remove alleged encroachment without show causing the writ petitioner.3.Issue notice to respondents.4.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all five respondents and submits, on instructions, that impugned notice now stands withdrawn as it does not show cause the noticee/writ petitioner. This fair submission of learned State counsel is recorded and on the basis of this submission, we write that the impugned notice stands effaced without expression of any view or opinion on the merits of the matter.5.Before we proceed further, it is necessary to record a disputation. We make it clear that we record this only for the sake of completion of facts and to comprehensively capture what transpired in the hearing.5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 20256.Learned State counsel submitted that post issue of impugned notice, writ petitioner has removed the compound wall alone, himself. In a riposte, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that this submission is incorrect. We leave open this question as it turns heavily on facts and it is not necessary to embark upon any adjudication on this aspect of the matter to give a closure to the captioned main WP as impugned notice stands effaced.7.Be that as it may, learned State counsel made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the State to issue a notice afresh as regards the same subject matter either under said 1905 Act or under any other appropriate applicable statute.8.We accede to the aforemade request of learned State counsel and preserve the rights and contentions of the State to issue a notice afresh. Axiomatically, we also preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner, if writ petitioner is visited with a fresh notice.9.The narrative thus far is sufficient to give a closure to the captioned main WP by taking up the same with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List, itself.10.Captioned main WP stands disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner. As the impugned notice stands effaced, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat has become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (T.V.K., J.) 06.08.2025cadIndex : Yes/No NC: Yes/NoTo1.The District CollectorCollectorate BuildingsSalemTamil Nadu2.The District Revenue OfficerDistrict Collectorate BuildingsSalem3.The Revenue Divisional OfficerNear Fire StationSuramangalam, Salem4.The TahsildarVazhapadi Taluk Office6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 2025Salem District5.The Revenue InspectorVazhapadi TalukSalem District'3.Post roll back of the earlier notice, fifth respondent has now issued a notice afresh being notice dated 08.08.2025 which is also under Section 7 of said 1905 Act [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. The impugned notice show causes the writ petitioner. However, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that second parcel of land belongs to a temple, viz., 'Arulmigu Nalla Perumal Temple, Vazhapadi, Salem District' [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which comes under the control of the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Thanthondreeswarar Temple and Venugopalaswamy Temple, Pelur Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.4.Issue notice to respondents.5.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1,2,4 and 5 and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, HR & CE Department, accepts notice for third respondent.7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 20256.Before proceeding further, we suo motu add the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem, having office in Kottai Mariamman Temple, Fort, Salem 636 001 as sixth respondent and Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, HR & CE Department, accepts notice for sixth respondent also.7.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1,2,4 and 5, submits, on instructions, that as the writ petitioner has not responded to the impugned notice, Section 6 order dated 19.08.2025 has since been made and the same has been served on the writ petitioner on 21.08.2025.8.However, learned counsel for writ petitioner is unable to respond to this for want of instructions. Therefore, without entering upon factual disputation as regards service of Section 6 order on writ petitioner, a copy of the Section 6 order has been furnished to the writ petitioner today (25.08.2025) and today (25.08.2025) will be treated as reckoning date for the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal against Section 6 order. To be noted, appeal as against this Section 6 order lies to first respondent under Section 6 of said 1905 Act and along with appeal, it is open to the writ petitioner to file a stay petition under Section 10-B.8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 20259.As regards the contention that second parcel of land belongs to said temple, Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted on instructions, that second parcel of land has already been inspected and proceedings under Section 78 of 'The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' [hereinafter 'HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience] qua writ petitioner has already been initiated. If that be so, it is open to the Section 78 proceedings under the HR & CE Act to proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammelled by instant order.10.Equally, appeal, if any, before the first respondent shall also be considered by first respondent on its own merits and in accordance with law, untrammelled by instant order.11.As regards the mandamus limb of the prayer (to be noted, captioned main WP has been filed with a prayer seeking issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus), a representation dated 17.07.2025 by the writ petitioner seeking issue of patta for 621 sq.ft. or thereabouts vacant land in first parcel of land has been sought. This Court is informed by Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan that fourth respondent (Tahsildar) has to take a call on this representation. It is open to fourth respondent to take a call and make orders on the 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 2025same as expeditiously as the official business of fourth respondent permits. 12.Learned State counsel for respondents 1,2,4 and 5 submits that fourth respondent will make orders on the representation within eight weeks from today i.e., on or before 20.10.2025.13.Reverting to the statutory appeal under Section 10, as this Court has taken today (25.08.2025) as the reckoning date, writ petitioner will have 30 days time from today i.e., 24.09.2025 vide sub-section (1) of Section 11 of said 1905 Act to prefer an appeal. If the appeal is preferred within 24.09.2025, the same shall be treated as within time.14.Be that as it may, if the appeal is filed along with Section 10-B petition (stay petition), coercive action, if any and if that be so, shall be subject to and depending on the outcome of the Section 10-B petition. Though obvious, we make it clear that coercive action, if any and if that be so, will wait till the 30 day period from today elapses.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 202515.For the purposes of statutory appeal, proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act and consideration of writ petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2025, all rights and contentions of both sides are left open for the matter being considered untrammelled by this order.16.Captioned main WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. In the light of what we have written regarding coercive action, if any, and if that be so, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat seeking stay of impugned notice has become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)25.08.2025 cad11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.31597 of 2025M. SUNDAR, J.andR. SAKTHIVEL, J.cadTo1.The District CollectorCollectorate BuildingsSalem, Tamil Nadu2.The District Revenue OfficerDistrict Collectorate BuildingsSalem3.The Assistant CommissionerHindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Salem4.The TahsildarVazhapadi Taluk OfficerSalem District5.The Revenue InspectorVazhapadi TalukSalem District6.The Joint CommissionerHindu Religious & Charitable Endowments DepartmentKottai Mariamman TempleFort Salem 636 001W.P. No.31597 of 202525.08.202512/12