SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Sundar, K.Rajasekar, JJ.
C. Muniyammal - Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector Vengikkal Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District - Respondent
W.P.Nos.1344,1347,1348 and 1372 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.1592,1596,1599 and 1622 of 2025
Decided On : 22-01-2025



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Ashok
For the Respondents:Mr. V. Ravi Special Government Pleader assisted by Mr. M.S. Arasakumar Government Advocate

Impugned notices were set aside due to lack of jurisdiction to issue under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

Headnote:This judgment discusses impugned notices issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, regarding land in Padavedu Village. The court finds jurisdictional issues as the notices were issued by an unauthorized official. The court maintains all rights for issuing fresh notices under the Act in compliance with existing laws. It is held that the notices are set aside on jurisdictional grounds, not on the merits of encroachment, directing timely issuance of new notices under the law.

ORDER :

M.SUNDAR, J.

Captioned four main 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WPs' in plural and 'WP' in singular for the sake of brevity} have been filed assailing four separate notices, all dated 15.06.2023, issued by R5 [The President, Padavedu Village Panchayat, Padavedu, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District] under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} which shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. Notwithstanding very many averments and grounds in the writ affidavit, Mr. J. Ashok, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners, predicated his campaign against impugned notices on one point and that one point is that impugned notices have been issued by an authority, who does not have power to issue the notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act.

3. Issue notice to respondents.

4. Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for all respondents.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that R5 is vested with power to issue notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act.

6. Considering the limited scope of the captioned main WPs, main WPs were taken up in the Admission Board with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

7. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to record certain facts, trajectory the captioned matters have taken thus far and facts that unfurled in hearing qua captioned WPs and an adumbration in this regard as follows:

(i) The subject matter of impugned notices is 'lands in S.No.271/B, Padavedu Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District' {hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of brevity};

(ii) R5 in the captioned main WPs had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.36811 of 2024 with a prayer to mandamus R1 to R4 before us (to be noted, R1 to R4 in the captioned main WPs are R1 to R4 in W.P.No.36811 of 2024 also) to remove alleged encroachment/s in said lands on the ground that the said lands have been classified as 'Kuttai Poromboke'. To be noted, writ petitioner in captioned W.P.No.1344 of 2025 [C.Muniyammal, Wife of Chinnakulandai], writ petitioner in W.P.No.1347 of 2025 [K. Sivakumar, Son of Kuppan], writ petitioner in W.P.No.1348 of 2025 [D.Saravanan, Son of Dhanapal] and writ petitioner in W.P.No.1372 of 2025 [P.V. Raghuraman, Son of Vasu] are RR 15, 10, 13 and 8 respectively in W.P.No.36811 of 2024. This W.P.No.36811 of 2024 came to be disposed of by this Court in and by an order dated 04.12.2024 which reads as follows:

(iii) Aforementioned 04.12.2024 order of this Court speaks for itself and it now comes to light that 'notices already issued' are inter alia impugned notices;

(iv) Impugned notices were not brought to the notice of this Court when 04.12.2024 order was made though it was submitted that notices have already been issued and that notices already issued were notices under Section 131(2) of 'the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}. Therefore, this Court, in paragraph no.8 of aforereferred 04.12.2024 order, after recording the submission that notices have already been issued, in paragraph no.9, directed notices under said 1905 Act to be issued by R2 but it now comes to light that notices had already been issued under said 1905 Act and that the same have been issued by R5; (v) It is also submitted that writ petitioners have responded to impugned notices vide identical responses, all dated 02.07.2023. To be noted, responses placed before us are unsigned and there are no acknowledgments. One of the identical responses i.e., response dated 02.07.2023 in the first captioned WP, viz., W.P.No.1344 of 2025 is as follows:

8. A careful perusal of the aforementioned narrative which captures facts, trajectory thus far and what unfurls from the case files, brings to light that as early as in July of 2023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top