JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the proceedings No. nil, dated 27.12.2013, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and unconstitutional and further for bearing the respondents, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the petitioner's holdings at S. No. 82, situated at Village No. 156, Mamallapuram Township, Kancheepuram District.

1. The notice dated 27.12.2013 issued by the second respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that his property is located at the Highway leading Chennai to Mamallapuram via Kovalam. The property is on the western side of the road. The petitioner purchased the said subject property for a valuable consideration on 25.08.1988 and 27.03.1990. Patta was also transferred in the name of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the second respondent/The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways) C&M Chengalpattu, issued the impugned notice under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the Highways Act] stating that the petitioner is an encroacher, he is liable to be evicted from the subject property.

3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the notice was not properly addressed to the petitioner nor communicated in a proper manner. Secondly, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Highways) C&M Chengalpattu, is not a competent authority to issue such a notice and on that ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. As far as the competency of the second respondent/Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways) C&M Chengalpattu, is concerned, it is relevant to consider Section 28(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. Section 28 of the Highways Act enumerates “Prevention of Encroachment.” Section 28(1) stipulates the Highways authority or any person authorised by it in this behalf shall, at such time as may be considered necessary, conduct such checks and periodical inspection, of the highway boundaries, with the view to ensure the prevention of unauthorised encroachment and the removal of such encroachment.

5. Section 28(2) of the Highways Act contemplates the Highways authority or any person authorised by it in this behalf, may:

(ii) remove any immovable structure, whether permanent or temporary in nature, encroaching the highway or in the area vested with Government under this Act, after issuing a show cause notice against such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof.

6. In view of the above provision, it is clear the Highways authority or any other person authorised by such highway authority is empowered to issue notice. The highway authority in the present case is the Divisional Engineer. The Divisional Engineer authorised the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, to issue notice and remove the encroachments by invoking the provisions of Section 28 of the Highways Act. Thus, the point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner fails and the action initiated by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), for the purpose of invoking Section 28 of the Highways Act is well within the powers as contemplated under the provision and there is no infirmity as such.

7. Regarding the other grounds raised that the impugned notice has not been addressed to the petitioner, the impugned notice, which is enclosed at Page No. 40 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition reveals that the address of the petitioner has not been stated at all. In other words, the notice impugned was properly communicated to the petitioner or not, is not established before this Court. In the bottom of the impugned notice, even the addressee name and address is missing.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the notice has not been properly addressed and therefore, a