Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1251
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, JJ.
Sankar @ Jaisankar - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Dindigul District & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 10835 of 2017 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 8256 of 2017
Decided On : 09-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.R. Jeyapalam
For the Respondents: Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, Mr. Niranjen S. Kumar
Jurisdictional limits of authorities and the requirement for independent consideration of objections under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Headnote:
Single Cause of Action - Multiplicity of Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 7
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a single cause of action resulting in multiple proceedings due to a misconstrued court order and subsequent actions by the seventh respondent. The petitioner challenged notices issued by the seventh respondent and sought relief under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seventh respondent exceeded jurisdiction by issuing notices and directed the Revenue Authorities to independently consider objections and conduct a thorough inquiry in accordance with the Act. The court also ordered maintenance of status quo until a decision is made by the Revenue Authorities.
Issues: Misinterpretation of court order, jurisdiction of the seventh respondent, pending objections before Revenue Authorities
Ratio Decidendi: The seventh respondent exceeded jurisdiction by issuing notices, and the Revenue Authorities should independently consider objections and conduct a thorough inquiry in accordance with the Act.
Final Decision: The notices issued by the seventh respondent were set aside, and the Revenue Authorities were directed to conduct a thorough inquiry and re-survey the property, maintaining status quo until a decision is made.
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
Heard Mr. T.R. Jeyapalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 9 and Mr. Niranjen S. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the tenth respondent. With the consent of all the counsels, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present Writ Petition is a classic example as to how a single cause of action can result in multiplicity of proceedings. Essentially, the problem arose on account of an order passed in W.P.(MD)No.23948 of 2016 filed by the tenth respondent herein, which was disposed of at the admission stage, by order dated 14.12.2016, without notice to the respondents 9 and 10, one of whom is the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
3. Though the ultimate direction issued by the Division Bench is an innocuous direction, by directing the concerned respondents to consider the representation dated 24.10.2016 and pass suitable orders, after giving opportunity to the respondents 9 and 10 (present writ petitioner and his brother), the authorities, more particularly, the seventh respondent has misconstrued the scope of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court. This has necessitated the petitioner to file a petition to recall the order dated 14.12.2016 and to file a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.10356 of 2017, challenging the notice issued by the seventh respondent dated 22.05.2017 and thereafter, since another proceedings was issued by the seventh respondent, requesting for police protection to remove the alleged encroachment by notice dated 06.06.2017, the petitioner was constrained to challenge the said notice in this Writ Petition. The allegation made by the tenth respondent in this Writ Petition in his Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD)No.23948 of 2016 is that the petitioner and his brother have obliterated a channel. As pointed out by us earlier, though the relief granted by the Division Bench is, in fact, an innocuous relief, nevertheless, the Court has recorded the submission of the petitioner in the body of the order. This presumably has been misinterpreted by the seventh respondent to be a finding recorded by the Court, as a result of which, the seventh respondent has issued two proceedings dated 22.05.2017 and 06.06.2017, which have been challenged by the petitioner. However, the Revenue Authority, who is the competent authority to consider as to whether there has been any encroachment or not has not been swayed by any of the observations made in the order of the Court, but, has rightly invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, [for brevity, "the Act"] and issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections on or before 22.05.2017.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the objection submitted by the petitioner dated 22.05.2017, which is stated to have been received by the office of the Revenue Authorities, vide postal acknowledgment card dated 23.05.2017. Thus, as-on-date, the Revenue authorities have not adjudicated upon the correctness of the proposal made in the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act and the matter is pending. Parallely, the seventh respondent has proceeded to issue notices dated 22.05.2017 and 06.06.2017.
5. In our considered view, the seventh respondent is not the competent authority to decide as to whether there has been encroachment or not in a public road or Odai and the seventh respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction and issued notice dated 22.05.2017 and 06.06.2017. Therefore, the notices dated 22.05.2017 and 06.06.2017 have to be necessarily set aside.
6. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Revenue Authorities will be swayed by the observations contained in the order dated 14.12.2016 made in W.P.(MD)No.23948 of 2016. Though this apprehension may be a bit reasonable, but not wholly tenable as the Revenue Authorit
