Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 972
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
M/s. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Rep by its Company Secretary
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary to Government Revenue Department & Others
W.P. No. 4070 of 2008 & M.P. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2008
Decided on : 18-02-2013
For the Petitioner:Satish Parasaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Ravichandran, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must follow the procedure laid down under the relevant Act, and failure to do so can result in the quashing of the impugned order.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Land Allotment - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Sections 6, 7 - The court quashed the order of eviction and directed the respondents to follow the procedure laid down under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in mining operations, filed a writ petition challenging the order of eviction issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner claimed that the land in question was being used as a weigh bridge for several years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were not followed by the respondents while ordering the eviction of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents followed the procedure laid down under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act while ordering the eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition deserves to succeed as the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were not followed by the respondents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of eviction was quashed. The respondents were directed to proceed against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by following the procedure laid down under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, if so advised.
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent comprised in the impugned order dated 07.12.2007 bearing Ref No. Na.Ka.66-2007A9 and consequential order dated 21.01.2008 bearing Ref. Na.Ka.66-2007A9 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind with consequential prayer to direct to the respondents to process the application as reiterated dated 20.12.2007 for assignment of the land and enter into a suitable deed in this regard.
2. This Court on 14.02.2013, passed the following order:
"M/s. Madras Aluminium Co., Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notice dated 07.12.2007 and the consequential order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Namakkal, ordering removal of alleged encroachment by the petitioner.
2. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that the company was incorporated in the year 1965 with Italian Technology for manufacture of integrated aluminium. The company was declared sick in the year 1991 and thereafter was taken over by M/s. Anil Agarwal Associates, who revived the company. The petitioner was granted mining rights for bauxite in the year 1967. Since the date of allotment of mining rights, it has been carrying on mining operations according to laws in force. For purposes, the company constructed weigh bridge in the year1977.
3. The case of petitioner is that though the weigh bridge falls within the land belonging to petitioner, the respondent no.3 issued notice to the petitioner for removal of weight bridge on 07.12.2007. The petitioner company submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice, disputing the allegation, that the weight bridge is on encroached land. The company has rather claimed it to be under the ownership of the petitioner.
4. The further case of petitioner is that, inspite of detailed objections, the respondent no.3, without dealing with the objections raised by petitioner, passed a non-speaking impuged order, ordering the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the land by claiming it to be the Government land.
5. It is not disputed between the parties, that the power to remove encroachment of Government land is regulated by the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and according to the Act, a person can be ordered to be evicted. Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 read as under:
"6. Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc.:—
(1) Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3 or Section3-A may be summarily evicted by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred as the Authorized 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 Deputy Tashildar or authorized Officer, may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized 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.
(2) An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely:—— By serving a notice in the manner provided in Section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the Collector or the Tahsildar or Deputy Ta
