SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Mad) 685

C.SHIVAPPA, B.AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI
D. Sathish – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluka and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates: P. Anbarasan, K. Hidayatullah, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

Judgment :-

C. SHIVAPPA, J.

The appellant had challenged the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20-6-1994, passed in W.P. No. 10440 of 1994. In the writ petition, the appellant herein challenged the order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that no prior notice was issued under Section 7 of the Act.

2. It is contended in this Appeal that the finding of the learned single Judge that "though the impugned notice purports to be a notice under Section 6 of the Act, in substance, it is really a notice under Section 7 of the Act", is wrong.

3. Before taking proceedings under Section 6, the Collector or Tahsildar, or Deputy Tehsildar, or Revenue Inspector, or any authorised officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in that behalf shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be an unauthorised occupant of a land, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Section 6 of the Act. But, such notice need not be served in the case of any person unauthorisedly occupying the land, if he had previously been evic



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top