The court upheld the validity of impugned orders under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, confirming that proper notices were served and emphasizing the efficacy of statutory appeals as an alternate remedy.

ORDER :

[M. SUNDAR, J.,]

In the captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity), Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners is before us on VC (video conferencing) platform. Two other counsel on record viz., Mr.S.Arunkumar and Mr.J.Ganesh are before us in the physical Court. To be noted, this is a hybrid hearing which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court.

2. In the captioned main WP, inter-alia 'notices/orders under Section 6 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 orders' for the sake of convenience and clarity] have been assailed.

3. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that the impugned orders were not preceded by Section 7 notices.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all four respondents.

6. Learned State counsel, on instructions, submitted before us that the impugned orders were preceded by notices under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. In support of this contention, learned State counsel placed before us a typed set of papers dated 03.02.2025 after furnishing a copy of the same to learned counsel on record for writ petitioners Tvl. S.Arunkumar and J.Ganesh, who are present in the physical Court.

7. Owing to the limited scope of the captioned main WP, captioned main WP was taken up in the Admission Board/Motion List with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

8. Notwithstanding very many averments in the support affidavit i.e., writ affidavit and grounds thereat, learned counsel for writ petitioners predicated his campaign against the impugned orders on two grounds and they are as follows:

(i) Impugned orders were not preceded by notices under Section 7 of said 1905 Act (already alluded to supra);

(ii) Procedure for enquiry has not been followed before making the impugned orders.

9. In response to the aforesaid two points, learned State counsel submitted as follows:

9.1 Impugned orders were preceded by Section 7 notices. Some of the writ petitioners have received the notices and in the case of some others who have refused to receive, affixture has been resorted to. In support of this submission, learned State counsel has placed before us a typed set of papers dated 03.02.2025 (as already alluded to supra) wherein revenue proceedings pursuant to refusal as well as affixture photographs have been annexed.

9.2 On the second point, learned State counsel submitted on instructions that impugned orders have been made after due enquiry.

10. By way of reply, learned counsel for writ petitioners submitted that Section 7 notices refer to Ke;jphp kw;Wk; tPLfs; whereas the impugned orders refer to tPLfs;/ On this basis, it was contended that Section 7 notices have been issued for land and impugned orders have been issued for superstructure.

11. We carefully considered the rival submissions.

12. On the first point, learned counsel for writ petitioners pressed into service an order dated 27.01.2025 made in W.P.No.1805 of 2025 and Writ Miscellaneous Petitions thereat for the proposition that when Section 6 order is not preceded by Section 7 notice it is liable to be set aside. This is Peruma case (Peruma Vs. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri ). We carefully considered Peruma case. We are of the view that Peruma case is distinguishable on facts. In Peruma case, learned State counsel was not able to place any document to demonstrate that there was affixture, moreover, in the written instructions given to State counsel, there was not even an averment that Section 7 notices were affixed. This is captured in paragraph 5 of Peruma case, which reads as follo