Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Dr. G. Viswanathan, Chancellor/Managing Trustee, Vellore
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai & Others
W.P.NO.19805 of 2009 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2009
Decided On : 22-06-2010
Land Encroachment - Challenge to notice under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 6 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the conditions imposed under G.O.Ms.No.112, Revenue Department, dated 9.3.2001. The court also referred to the judgments of Hamsavalli Vs. The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District (AIR 1990 MADRAS 350), D.Sathish Vs. Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluka and others (1998 (III) CTC 215), and V.Arunagiri and others Vs. The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Thiruvannamalai and others (1999 (I) CTC 1) to interpret the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 7 before taking action under Section 6 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Managing Trustee and Chancellor of Vellore Institute of Technology, challenged a notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the Tahsildar, Katpadi Taluk. The petitioner claimed to be the Founder and Chancellor of VIT, a deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, and had purchased lands for running educational institutions. The notice alleged violation of conditions of land assignment and called for vacation of the land and removal of constructions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had violated the conditions of land assignment and had encroached upon government lands, using them for unauthorized constructions and activities. The court held that the petitioner's claim for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was misconceived and devoid of merits, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Violation of conditions of land assignment, legality of the notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and the petitioner's entitlement to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and the conditions imposed under G.O.Ms.No.112, Revenue Department, dated 9.3.2001. It interpreted the mandatory requirement of issuing notice under Section 7 before taking action under Section 6 of the Act, as established in the judgments of Hamsavalli Vs. The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District, D.Sathish Vs. Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluka and V.Arunagiri and others Vs. The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Thiruvannamalai and others.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived, devoid of merits, and the court refused to exercise its discretionary power in favor of the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. Heard both sides. The petitioner is the Managing Trustee and Chancellor of Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT). He has come forward to challenge the notice, dated 16.09.2009 issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the third respondent Tahsildar, Katpadi Taluk. The said writ petition was admitted on 29.09.2009 and an interim stay was granted. On notice from this court, the second respondent District Collector, Vellore has filed a counter affidavit, dated 12.12.2009. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, dated 20.12.2009. Original records were also produced.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Founder and Chancellor of the VIT which is deemed to be an university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. The said institution is established by the North Arcot Educational and Charitable Trust created in the year 1984. It is claimed that the VIT had purchased lands for running their educational institutions. The first respondent had assigned 98.80 acres of land which was purchased by them as per the price fixed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.112, Revenue Department, dated 9.3.2001. By the same G.O., they were also put in possession of lands in Survey Nos.782, 783/2, 784/1A, 784/2A, 559 of Katpadi Village and S.Nos.20, 21, 22, 29/2, 31, 34/2, 36, 39, 446/1, 446/2, 447/1 and 447/2 in Kangayanallur Village for maintenance and the channels for enabling free flow of rain water to the lake at a distance. As per the condition imposed in the said G.O., the petitioner was maintaining the lands and also had constructed concrete revetment to the channels for free flow.
3. It was also claimed that certain portion of lands situated in between the lands assigned were subsequently sold by the Government. The petitioner also requested the Government for allotment of additional lands as the University was in need of those lands. The petitioner wrote letters to the Government and the District Collector on 20.7.2003, 11.11.2003, 2.4.2004 and 14.11.2005 for alloting or assigning or selling it on an outright basis. Those lands are lying as waste lands without use by the Government or any one. They were particular in buying the lands which are lying in between the lands alleged to have been at Katpadi village. The request by the petitioner for assigning of those lands for education purpose was pending consideration by the Government. Based on their request, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department by his letter dated 23.8.2008 called for various details The petitioner university had given details of those lands and its location including survey numbers. But their request was pending consideration by the Government.
4. The Distirct Collector issued a show cause notice, dated 21.08.2009 stating that the petitioner institute had violated the condition of assignment imposd by G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 09.03.2001 and called upon the petitioner to give reply. The notice was not mentioned any particular provision of law. The petitioner institute sent a detailed reply on 27.08.2009. They contended that they had complied with all conditions and considerable amount was also spent in maintaining the land. Even while proceedings were pending, the third respondent activated an action in terms of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and issued a notice, dated 16.9.2009 to vacate the land and also to remove all constructions in the land comprised in Survey Nos.783/1B, 784/1A, 559, 788, 790, 556/2 at Katpadi Village and S.Nos.31, 29/2, 34/2 and 446/2 at Kangayanallur Village, within 15 days, failing which possession was to be taken.
5. It is claimed that the said notice was illegal. It is further claimed that the survey numbers quoted in the said notice formed part of their earlier notice, dated 21.8.2009, for which a detailed explanation was given. Further, the notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act was given without giving a notice Section 7 of the Act. Therefor
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
