Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. SUNDAR, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
K.Thilagaraj – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Madurantakam Municipality Chengalpattu District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property details and notice context (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. representation and procedural fairness (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. notice issuance and acceptance (Para 4) |
| 4. consideration of representation under tnulb act (Para 7) |
| 5. set aside the impugned order and require fresh consideration. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. final order and implications (Para 10) |
ORDER :
M.SUNDAR, J.
Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] is property situate in S.No.1008/1A part and 1007/part in Madurantakam Town and Taluk, Chengalpttu District, now in Town Survey No.37, Block 40,Ward-A and can otherwise be described as Door No.23/1, Old Taluk Office Road, Madurantakam Town & Taluk, Chengalpattu District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of brevity].
2. A 'communication dated 06.03.2025 bearing reference 
from the sole respondent inter alia calling upon the writ petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment i.e., said property' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience] has been called in question.
3. Mr.G.Mageshkumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that the respondent earlier issued notice dated 10.10.2024 purportedly under Section 128
The court held that procedural fairness requires that all representations must be duly considered before enforcing removal orders 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 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.
Writ jurisdiction does not entertain petitions against eviction notices without established legal rights, reinforcing authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.
The court concluded that a writ against an eviction notice is not viable without the establishment of a legal right, emphasizing due process under the TNULB Act.
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.
A petitioner must establish a legal right to contest administrative notices under local body statutes; failure results in dismissal of the petition.
A petitioner cannot re-litigate issues previously adjudicated without demonstrating any legal entitlement, especially in matters relating to public land usage.
Authority must consider timely representations under Section 128 before final orders and eviction.
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
