The court affirmed that the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act has the power to stay execution of orders and that the Alternative Remedy rule is not absolute but discretionary.

ORDER :

M. SUNDAR, J.

This order will now govern the captioned main writ petition and captioned writ miscellaneous petitions thereat.

2. When the captioned matter was listed yesterday (05.02.2025), the following proceedings/order was made:

'W.P.No.4076 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.4581, 4582 & 4584 of 2025

M.SUNDAR, J.

and

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR. J.,]

Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed with a Certiorarified mandamus prayer.

2. In and vide certiorari limb, an 'order dated 28.01.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.115/2025/A5 made by R4 [the Tahsildar, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District]' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} has been assailed.

3. Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, adverting to impugned order submits that impugned order directs further proceedings pursuant to notice and order under Sections 7 and 6 respectively of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}. To be noted, Section 7 notice is dated 03.12.2024 and Section 6 notice / order is dated 04.12.2024 but contains a signature in the office of R4 dated 02.01.2025.

4. Subject matter of aforementioned proceedings is 'land admeasuring 4.09 acres or thereabouts comprised in S.Nos.419/1 and 419/4 in Ellayamuthur Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District' {hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.

5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner originally sought assignment, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11296 of 2014 regarding assignment application dated 07.09.2013. This writ petition was disposed of on 07.02.2022 by a Hon'ble single Judge directing R1 before us to consider the assignment application on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within 12 weeks but thereafter, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 10.05.2022 providing for exchange inter alia by substituting Order 26A of 'Revenue Standing Order' {'RSO'} and therefore, the writ petitioner applied for exchange on 17.12.2024 offering a equivalent 4.09 acres in S.Nos.188/A2 and 187/2 Part in Ellayamuthur Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tiruppur District.

6. Pending exchange application, proceedings under said 1905 Act were kick started and the same has culminated in impugned order is learned counsel for writ petitioner's say.

7. Issue notice.

8. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all five respondents and seeks a short accommodation inter alia to get instructions qua who is the authority / which is the authority, which is vested with power to decide on the exchange plea of writ petitioner.

9. Let the matter stand over by a day.

List in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List tomorrow (06.02.2025).

[M.S., J] [K.G.T., J]

05.02.2025'

3. The aforementioned proceedings/order shall now be read as integral part and parcel of this order. This means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in our earlier proceedings/order dated 05.02.2025 shall continue to be used in the instant order too.

4. Adverting to the aforementioned earlier proceedings/order, learned State counsel submitted that the authority which is vested with the power to decide the exchange plea is, the Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA) but the CLA will act on reports from R1, which, in turn, will be on the basis of reports collected from the hierarchy of Revenue officials.

5. The impugned order is clearly an order consequent to Section 7 and 6 notice/orders, details of which have been captured in paragraph no.3 of our earlier proceedings/order which, as alluded to supra, is now an integral part and parcel of this order.

6. Absent notice/order under Section 6, the impugned order could not have been made. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to record the stated position of learned State counsel that