IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
C. Arulsamy @ C.A. Samy – Petitioner
Versus
The Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation – Respondent
W.P. No. 15865 of 2024, W.M.P. No. 17300 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2024
Urban Act - Writ Petition - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 - Section 128 - The court interpreted Section 128 of the Urban Act, emphasizing that personal hearings are not statutorily required for show cause notices, influencing the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act regarding alleged encroachment on land not covered by their sale deeds, asserting ownership based on prior transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notice pertained to land not included in the writ petitioner's sale deeds, and the arguments presented did not substantiate a valid claim against the notice.
Issues: Whether the impugned notice under Section 128 was valid given the writ petitioner's claims of ownership and the requirement for a personal hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory provisions do not mandate a personal hearing for show cause notices under Section 128, and the writ petitioner's claims did not establish a right to contest the notice.
Result: The writ petition and the accompanying miscellaneous petition were dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Captioned ‘Writ Petition’ (hereinafter ‘WP’ for the sake of brevity) has been filed assailing a ‘notice dated 07.05.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No. 5978/2013/H1(w)’ (hereinafter ‘impugned notice’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) issued by the respondent under Section 128 of ‘The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998’ (hereinafter ‘Urban Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience). Captioned ‘Writ Miscellaneous Petition’ (hereinafter ‘WMP’ for the sake of brevity) thereat has been filed with a prayer for interim stay qua impugned notice pending WP.
2. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for writ petitioner is before us.
3. Essential facts as can be culled out from the case file and the submissions made by learned counsel for writ petitioner are that the writ petitioner purchased a piece of land from two vendors vide two sale deeds both dated 03.11.1993; that one sale deed is registered as Document No. 3689 and another sale deed is registered as Document No. 3696, both on the file of the office of jurisdictional Joint Sub Registrar in Coimbatore; that vide first sale deed, writ petitioner has purchased an extent of 2726 sq.ft. and vide second sale deed, the writ petitioner has purchased 2177 sq.ft. (totalling 4903 sq.ft.), survey numbers as regards these two sale deeds are Survey Nos.68/1B, 1C, 1D/2 Part and 70/2 in Vadavalli Village, Coimbatore District; that this total extent of 4903 sq.ft. shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘said land’ for the sake of convenience and clarity; that earlier, the writ petitioner along with some other individuals filed a writ of certiorari (W.P. No. 26578 of 2013) assailing a notice dated 24.08.2013 issued by the same respondent under Sections 258(4) and 441 of The Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981; that this earlier writ petition came to be disposed of by another Hon’ble Division Bench vide a common order dated 26.02.2024 (common order in four Writ Petitions); that in this common order, Hon’ble Division Bench made it clear that as regards writ petitioner, the respondent has to scrutinise the documents and take appropriate decision qua removal; that thereafter the respondent issued a ‘show cause notice dated 04.04.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No. 5978/2013/H1(W)’ (hereinafter ‘SCN’ for the sake of convenience, contradistinction qua ‘said land’ and clarity) with regard to ‘Survey No. 68/1D1 PT’ (hereinafter ‘land in question’ for the sake of convenience and clarity) saying that the same has been set apart for common use i.e. well and overhead tank; that the writ petitioner has allegedly caused encroachment qua land in question; that therefore this SCN dated 04.04.2024 was issued under Section 128 of Urban Act; that in response to this notice, writ petitioner sent a reply showing cause vide communication dated 12.04.2024 inter-alia referring to the aforementioned 03.11.1993 sale deeds and saying that writ petitioner has purchased Plot No. 48 under these sale deeds and referring to abovesaid earlier common order (W.P. No. 26578 of 2013) and adding that writ petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 262 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif Court, Coimbatore (to be noted, this is a bare injunction suit qua said land); that this suit has been filed against one K. Ramalingam and a Welfare Association arraying them as D1 and D2; that the suit is pending but there is no interim order; that after writ petitioner’s reply to SCN i.e. reply dated 12.04.2024, the respondent has issued the impugned notice inter-alia saying that there is no sketch showing Plot No. 48 and that there is nothing to demonstrate that land in question (Survey No. 68/1D1 PT) belongs to writ petitioner; that the impugned notice calls upon the writ petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within seven days and says that failing compliance, the respondent would remove the encroachment and recover expenses; that captioned WP has been filed in this Court on 10.06.2024; that captioned WP is in the Admis
Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another
The court established that under Section 128 of the Urban Act, a personal hearing is not a statutory requirement for responding to a show cause notice.
The government cannot summarily evict property occupants without adjudication in genuine title disputes; legal ownership must be established in a civil court.
Challenging a Show Cause Notice invoking a court's writ jurisdiction is premature and discouraged by the mandate of the law. A Show Cause Notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless there i....
The main legal point established is the importance of following due process of law and the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in land dispute cases.
The court reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, requiring authorities to consider objections before taking coercive actions regarding land classification under the Ta....
Summary eviction is impermissible when there is a dispute over property title; due legal process must be followed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that summary proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be sustained when there is a longstanding possession and a bon....
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.