The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing and granted a stay of the impugned orders until the Statutory Appeal is disposed of.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent issued under Section 7 of the Act, dated 01.09.2021 and impugned proceedings of the second respondent issued under Section 6 of the Act in Na.Ga.10253/2020 B4, dated 03.03.2022, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to correct the wrong classification of Survey No.297/15 as comprised of a pathway and natham land after due field enquiry and usage.)

Common Order

Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notices dated 01.09.2021 and 03.03.2022 passed by the third respondent and second respondent, issued under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 against the petitioners respectively.

2. The case of the petitioners is that aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the petitioners have filed a Statutory Appeal under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, before the first respondent. The petitioners have also filed stay applications before the first respondent seeking stay of the impugned orders dated 01.09.2021 and 03.03.2022 passed under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, against them respectively. According to them, the said stay applications have not been considered till date. In such circumstances, they have filed these writ petitions.

3. The petitioners have raised the following grounds for challenging the orders dated 01.09.2021 and 03.03.2022 passed by the third respondent and second respondent respectively:

a) the respondents failed to see that there is no cause of action for exercise of powers under Section 7 or Section 6 of the Act, since the respondents 2 and 3 having stated that occupation of the petitioners is a natham land. The said occupation of natham land cannot be treated as an encroachment as the natham land is meant for occupation of villagers concerned.

b) the respondents have failed to consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners in reply to the notices issued under Section 7 or Section 6 of the Act that a wrong classification has been made in the revenue record with regard to Survey Nos.297/15 as if the said survey No.297/15 in entirety is a pathway. According to the petitioners, in the absence of any pathway in entirety in Survey No.297/15, the alleged encroachment is base less.

4. The explanations submitted by the petitioners have not been considered by the respondents and the respondents have passed a non-speaking order. Admittedly, a Statutory Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the impugned orders, which is the subject matter of these writ petitions. The said Statutory Appeal is pending before the first respondent. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, seeking stay of the impugned orders dated 01.09.2021 and 03.03.2022 passed by the third respondent and second respondent respectively, which are challenged in these writ petitions.

5. No prejudice would be caused to the respective parties, if direction is issued by this Court to the first respondent to dispose of the Statutory Appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that since the Statutory Appeal has already been filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 01.09.2021 and 03.03.2022, the eviction of the petitioners from the premises has not been enforced. The said submission is also recorded.

7. After recording the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the