A writ petition challenging jurisdictional notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act requires factual determination, and jurisdictional claims cannot be settled without due process.

ORDER :

M.SUNDAR, J.

Captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a prayer for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus. In and vide certiorari limb of the prayer, a 'notice dated 16.05.2024 issued by R6 (The Revenue Inspector, Kattankolathur Circle (FIRKA), Chengalpattu – 603 203) under Section 7 of 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] has been assailed. In and vide mandamus limb, there is a prayer to consider the representation dated 27.09.2024 seeking compensation under what is described as 'New Act' as regards what is described as patta land and building in 'Survey No.43B2/6 in Pallikaranai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Chengalpet District' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

2. Notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit, Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners predicated his campaign against the impugned notice issued by R6 on one solitary/sole point and that solitary/sole point is, impugned notice has been issued without jurisdiction. To buttress this submission, learned counsel drew our attention to Natham patta qua Survey No.43B2 and a copy of A Register qua same Survey No.43B2 which shows the classification as Ryotwari.

3. Issue notice to respondents.

4. Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all seven respondents and submits that impugned notice has been issued under Section 7 of said 1905 Act as regards Survey No.43B in Peramanur Village, Kattankolathur Circle, Chengalpattu District as Survey No.43B has been classified as Meikkal Poramboke.

5. This Court finds that the legal perimeter within which the captioned main WP has to perambulate is very limited and therefore with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioners and learned State counsel, captioned main WP is taken up in the Admission Board itself.

6. As already alluded to supra, the sole and solitary point on which learned counsel for writ petitioners predicates his campaign against the impugned notice is that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as according to him, Survey No.43B is patta land and it is outside the purview of said 1905 Act.

7. This Court carefully considered the case file as well as submissions made at the bar.

8. At the outset, this Court finds that the impugned notice pertains to Survey No.43B whereas copies of Natham patta and A Register placed before us talk about Survey No.43B2. While learned counsel submits that there has been sub-division, there is no material before this Court. Learned State counsel submitted to the contrary that Survey No.43B is meikkal poramboke. Therefore, there is factual disputation. Factual disputation has to be gone into only by considering the first writ petitioner's response to the impugned notice which is under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. The first writ petitioner in response to the impugned notice has sent a detailed representation (through counsel) dated 21.05.2024 and learned State counsel submits that the same is under active consideration of the State. This means that the same has to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law and a suitable order has to be made under Section 6 of said 1905 Act which in turn is appealable vide a statutory appeal under Section 10 with the provision for further statutory revision under Section 10 -