IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
S. Abdul Khader - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 17541, 19502, 20066 of 2021, W.M.P. Nos. 18644, 20796, 21318 of 2021
Decided On : 18-03-2025
ORDER :
M. SUNDAR, J.
1. This common order will govern the captioned three main 'writ petitions' (hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity) and the captioned 'writ miscellaneous petitions' (hereinafter 'WMPs' for the sake of brevity) thereat.
2. In the captioned main WPs, three separate notices but all dated 03.08.2021 and all bearing reference
(hereinafter 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity) have been assailed by the three writ petitioners. A scanned reproduction of one of the impugned notices i.e., impugned notice in W.P.No.17541 of 2021 (S. Abdul Khader-writ petitioner) is as follows:

3. Mr. N. Suresh, learned counsel for writ petitioners in all WPs, Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel for RR 1 and 2 (Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality in W.P.No.17541 of 201), Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Mohammed Hydher Ali, learned Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality in W.P. Nos.19502 and 20066 of 2021, Mr.V. Venkata Seshaiya, learned Standing Counsel for R3 (TANGEDCO) in all WPs and Mr.S.Sathish, learned counsel for R4 in all WPs, are before us.
4. This Court heard all the aforesaid counsel.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality, submitted that the impugned notices can be construed to be notices issued under Section 362 of 'the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920)' [hereinafter 'the District Municipalities Act' for the sake of brevity], though the impugned notices only talk about consequences under Section 362, if alleged encroachment is not removed within 15 days.
6. Notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioners predicated his campaign against the impugned notices on one point and that one point is, the writ petitioners have not been show caused.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for Villupuram Municipality submits that the impugned notices can now be treated as 'show cause notices' [hereinafter 'SCNs' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
8. Learned counsel for R4 [private respondent] submits that if the impugned notices are treated as SCNs today, a time frame may please be fixed for the writ petitioners / noticees to respond.
9. This Court has no difficulty in accepting the proposal to consider the impugned notices as SCNs as that would only mean that the writ petitioners are given an opportunity to respond and put forth their say qua alleged encroachments but before we do that and write the operative portion of this order, we deem it appropriate to capture the obtaining legal position for the sake of convenience and clarity qua all concerned.
10. 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' [hereinafter 'the TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity] is a conditional legislation vide sub-section (3) of Section 1 of TNULB Act, which is dated 04.05.1999, but originally kicked in (came into force) on 01.08.2000, suspended immediately thereafter, i.e., on 23.08.2000 and resuscitated on 13.04.2023 vide notification.
11. In and vide Section 200 of the TNULB Act captioned 'Repeal and saving' [to be precise vide Section 200(1)(b)], the District Municipalities Act stood repealed but vide clause (e) of sub-section 3 of Section 200 of the TNULB Act, all things done, made, instituted, executed, appointed, etc. by Municipalities before the commencement of the TNULB Act, i.e., prior to kicking in of the TNULB Act, stand saved and they are to be construed as things done, made, instituted, executed, appointed, etc. under the provisions of the TNULB Act.
12. Section 200(3)(e) of the TNULB Act has been amended vide Act 25 of 2024 which came into force on and from 06.01.2025. The effect of the amendment is, the term 'Municipalities' occurring in Section 200 (3)(e) has been substituted with the expression 'Municipal Councils'. Therefore, Section 200 (3)(e) of the TNULB Act as of today reads as follows:
'Section 200 (3)(e)
200. Repeal and Saving - (1) The following Acts are hereby repealed, na





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 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 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 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.
A petitioner cannot re-litigate issues previously adjudicated without demonstrating any legal entitlement, especially in matters relating to public land usage.
Natural justice principles require prior notice before eviction orders can be issued, even if not explicitly mandated by statute.
Natural justice must be observed even if an act does not explicitly require notice; the order impugned was quashed accordingly.
Eviction without showcasing notice violates principles of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice necessitate the issuance of a show cause notice prior to eviction actions under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
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.