IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Sundar, K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
Surapet Pavani Palms Flat Owners Association, Rep. by its Vice President - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.20127 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.22032 of 2024
Decided On : 19-07-2024
Encroachment - Writ Petition - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act - Section 128(1)(b) - The court emphasized the necessity of issuing a show cause notice before removing encroachments, highlighting the procedural safeguards in the TNULB Act.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging proceedings by the Zonal Officer regarding encroachment on a public pathway, claiming that the noticee was not given a show cause notice as required by law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned proceedings were invalid as they did not comply with the requirement of issuing a show cause notice under Section 128(1)(b) of the TNULB Act.
Issues: Whether the proceedings issued by the Zonal Officer were valid in the absence of a show cause notice to the noticee as mandated by the TNULB Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a show cause notice rendered the proceedings invalid, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in encroachment cases.
Result: The impugned proceedings were set aside for not issuing a show cause notice as required by law.
ORDER :
M.Sundar, J.
Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed in this Court on 16.07.2024 with a Certiorarified Mandamus prayer qua 'proceedings dated 26.06.2024 bearing reference Ma.A.3.Na.Ka.No.3754/2024 made by R2 (the Zonal Officer, Zone-3, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, Thattankulam Road, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.)' {hereinafter 'impugned proceedings' for the sake of convenience and clarity}.
2. Mr.S.Illamvaludhi, learned counsel on record for WP petitioner, adverting to impugned proceedings submits that R2 has issued the impugned proceedings without show causing the noticee.
3. Issue notice to respondents i.e., notice regarding admission.
4. Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned counsel accepts notice for R1 to R3. Mr.P.Srinivasan, (Enrol.No.511/1993), learned counsel with address for service at No.248, New Additional Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai-600 104, accepts notice for R4.
5. Learned counsel submits that impugned proceedings pertains to encroachment in a public pathway and therefore, the same has been made under the 'Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999) {hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity}.
6. Considering the limited scope of captioned WP, main WP was taken up with the consent of all learned counsel before us i.e., learned counsel for writ petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation (R1 to R3) and Mr.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel, who has accepted notice for R4.
7. A careful perusal of the TNULB Act brings to light that proceedings, if any, in cases of this nature has to necessarily be under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act and proviso thereat. Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act provides for a noticee being show caused with 7 days time to respond. To be noted, Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act together with proviso thereat reads as follows:
(a) remove without any notice any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching street or public place or the [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] with the municipal limit;
(b) remove any immovable structure whether permanent or of temporary nature encroaching the street or public place or the [land belonging to municipality or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, after issuing a show cause notice for such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof:
Provided that the Commissioner shall consider any representation received within the time limit, before passing final orders.
(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space (not being private property) in any public street or any [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to [fifty thousand rupees]:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.'
8. In the light of the provision and inbuilt mechanism therein i.e., mechanism to show cause the noticee qua proceedings under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act, we are of the considered view that the impugned proceedings deserves to be dislodged on this short point without expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter. We have also noticed that proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act provides for any representation to be considered, if the representation is made within 7 days window. This means that it will be open to R4 to make a representation and the same will also be considered before making final orders.
9. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed of in the following manner:
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 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 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 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 emphasized the necessity of treating notices as show cause notices, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice by allowing petitioners to respond.
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 mandated a survey of encroached public land and outlined procedural requirements for addressing encroachments under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.