The court affirmed that the statutory appeal under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is the appropriate remedy, and the Act is a self-contained code barring jurisdiction of courts over its orders.

ORDER :

1. Captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a certiorarified mandamus prayer. Certiorari limb of the prayer assails a notice / order {signed on 25.01.2025 by R4 (Thasildhar, Mohanur Taluk, Namakkal District)}. This notice/order has been made 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 convenience] and shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity. To be noted, the mandamus limb of the prayer seeks a directive to R4 to consider petitioner's notice through lawyer (styled as 'Reply Notice') dated 18.12.2024.

2. At the outset, Mr.G.Anbuchezheiyan, learned counsel for writ petitioner contended that the impugned order was not preceded by a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. In other words, writ petitioner was not show-caused before making of impugned order is learned counsel's say.

3. Issue notice to respondents.

4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepted notice for all six respondents, submitted on instructions that the impugned order was preceded by a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act being a notice signed by R6 on 16.12.2024. Learned State counsel submitted, on instructions, that the notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act was received by writ petitioner's spouse Mr.Paramasivam. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed before us the Section 7 notice together with acknowledgment of receipt by writ petitioner's spouse and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner could not enter upon a disputation or contestation on above and that by itself douses the point on which the writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned order in the Admission Board.

6. Nonetheless the writ petitioner wanted to advance some more arguments and therefore, the main WP was taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides. To be noted, main WP was taken up also for the reason that the scope of the captioned WP is very limited.

7. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner had caused a legal notice dated 18.12.2024 to be issued but proceedings under said 1905 Act have commenced post legal notice. This may not be the correct position as Section 7 notice is dated 16.12.2024, it has been served on writ petitioner's spouse on 16.12.2024 but the legal notice is dated 18.12.2024 and it has been mailed (as per postal receipt placed before us) only on 18.12.2024 at 11.30 am from Paramathi Post Office.

8. Be that as it may, the contents of the notice brings to light that there is a reference to a civil suit viz., O.S.No.46 of 2020. This suit O.S.No.46 of 2020 is on the file of District Munsif Court, Paramathi, it has been filed by the writ petitioner and all eight respondents are official respondents (including six respondents in the captioned main WP). We find that the suit is one for bare injunction. It is not restricted to land which is subject matter of impugned order but learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that Item No.4 in the plaint schedule properties is the subject matter of impugned order. Section 14 of said 1905 Act deals with bar of jurisdiction of Courts and the same reads as follows:

'14. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no order passed or proceeding taken by any officer or authority or the State Government under this Act shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit or application and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority or the State Government in pursu