Back
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
K. Gous Basha, S/o. Khalil Basha – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Maraimalainagar Municipality Maraimalainagar Chengalpattu – Respondent
ORDER :
M. Sundar, J.
Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed assailing a 'notice dated 16.07.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.2383/2024/F1-2 issued by R1' {hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity}.
2. Mr. G. Magesh Kumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, who is before us drew our attention to the aforementioned impugned notice and a scanned reproduction of the same as placed before us is as follows :
3. Notwithstanding very many grounds and myriad averments in the support writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned notice on one point and that one point is, the impugned notice directly calls upon the noticee (writ petitioner) to remove what according to R1 is an encroachment without show causing the writ petitioner.
4. Issue notice to official respondent i.e., R1.
5. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1.
6. Learned State counsel submits, on instructions, that the impugned notice has been issued under Section 128 of 'Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)' {hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevi
The court established that an impugned notice for removal of encroachment must be treated as a show cause notice if a response is provided, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness.
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of a show cause notice, is essential in encroachment proceedings under the TNULB Act.
The court ruled that a notice issued under Section 128 of the TNULB Act must allow the petitioner to respond before any coercive action is taken.
The court clarified the procedural requirements for issuing show cause notices under the TNULB Act, emphasizing the need for consideration of responses before final orders.
The court held that procedural fairness requires that all representations must be duly considered before enforcing removal orders under the TNULB Act.
A petitioner cannot re-litigate issues previously adjudicated without demonstrating any legal entitlement, especially in matters relating to public land usage.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of consideration of the petitioners' reply and non-application of mind by the respondents in issuing the notice for removal of encroachment on a waterb....
The court emphasized the necessity of treating notices as show cause notices, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice by allowing petitioners to respond.
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
