2006 Supreme(Mad) 1349
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM
Ramamurthy - Appellant
Versus
Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Management, Ramanathapuram Dist. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 1257 of 2006 and W. P. M. P. No. 1407 of 2006 and W. V. M. P. No. 226 of 2006
Decided On : 15 June 2006
In case of encroachment on Government land only specified/Authorised Officer can initiate eviction proceedings.
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Sections 6(1) and (2) and 7 - In case of encroachment on Government land only specified/Authorised Officer under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act can initiate eviction proceedings - Junior Engineer is not a specified Officer under Sections 6 and 7 of Act - Impugned proceedings unsustainable.
By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The above writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned notice issued by the first respondent. In the impugned notice, the order dated 27.6.2005 passed in W.P. No. 20186 of 2000 and the circular issued by the second respondent in D1/23155/05 dated 19.7.2005 are referred to and it is further stated that the impugned notice has been is-sued as per the directions contained therein. The petitioner has been informed by the said notice that he had encroached into the water channel by putting up a construction and he was directed to voluntarily vacate the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice is challenged on the ground that no prior notice has been issued to the petitioner as per the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and reported in T. Ramaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (2) CTC 741.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the land in question is a Government poramboke and the impugned notice has been issued pursuant to the order dated 2.2.2005 passed in W.P. No. 689 of 2005. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned proceedings is only a notice.
4. Heard both sides. Mr. K. Jeganathan learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the guidelines laid down in Ramaraju T v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) is followed, the petitioner will not have any objection. In the said Full Bench judgment, one of the guide-lines laid down is that so far as the encroachment of the land belonging to the Government is concerned, action, if any, can be taken only by the appropriate Authority by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (herein-after referred to as the Act). Admittedly, the land in question is a Government poramboke and the Act applies to the same. In such a case, only the Authorities who are clothed with power under the Act alone can initiate action under the Act.
5. Section 6(1) of the Act reads as follows:
"Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3 or Section 3-A may be summarily evicted by the Collector, or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any other Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Officer) and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector, or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or by Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this Section shall be ad-judged by the Collector, or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector, or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may direct."
6. Section 6(2) of the Act stipulates that an eviction under this Section shall be made in the manner provided therein. Section 6(2) of the Act contemplates serving of a notice under Section 7 of the Act on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent, requiring him within such time as the Collector or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may deem reasonable, after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land.
7. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:
"Section 7. Before taking proceedings under Section 6 the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any Authorised Officer or any other Officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an Authorised Officer) (hereinafter referred to as the `Specified Officer’ as the case may be) shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorised o