The court emphasized that disputes regarding land ownership under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act should be resolved through statutory appeals, affirming the Act's status as a self-contained code.

ORDER :

(M. SUNDAR, J.)

Subject matter of captioned main writ petition is land comprised in 'S.No.206/1 [admeasuring 0.10.00 hectares.ares] at No.17, Agaramthen Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District' [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity and convenience].

2. Captioned writ petition has been filed assailing an 'order dated 31.12.2024 bearing reference made by R1' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, impugned order has been made by R1 in exercise of powers 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, convenience and clarity}.

3. Mr.K.Sakthivel, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction as according to him said land is private land.

4. Issue notice.

5.Mr.M.S.Arasa Kumar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for both the respondents and submits on instructions that said land is 'punjai tharisu' and there are other alleged encroachers, who are also covered by the impugned order and other encroachers have preferred statutory appeals under Section 10 of said 1905 Act.

6. Owing to the limited scope of the captioned main writ petition, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition was taken up.

7. Notwithstanding very many averments/grounds raised in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned order on the following points:

i) Impugned order is completely without jurisdiction as said land is a private land and said 1905 Act does not apply;

ii) Prior to impugned order, a notice signed by R1 on 22.10.2024 was issued under Section 7 of said 1905 Act, writ petitioner sent a reply dated 04.11.2024 but impugned order has been made without holding enquiry which is a requirement vide sub-section (2) of Section 6 of said 1905 Act.

8. Before we set out the response of the State counsel to the aforesaid points, we deem it appropriate to capture some factual points and trajectory the matter has taken, the details of which are as follows:

i) One B.Santhanam filed a 'Public Interest Litigation' ['PIL' for the sake of brevity] inter alia with regard to said land, this PIL came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench in and by an order dated 22.02.2024 and the same reads as follows:

Complaining of non-compliance with aforereferred order, Mr.B.Santhanam has filed a contempt petition in Contempt Petition No.3193 of 2024 and another Hon'ble Division Bench is in seizin of the same.

8. Reverting to the points urged by learned counsel for writ petitioner, response of the State counsel is as follows:

(i) It is incorrect to say that the said land is private land by placing reliance on a Gazette Publication dated 04.05.1966. It is submitted that said Gazette publication pertains to Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1962 and there is a reference to S.No.206 (not sub-divided) admeasuring 25 cents declaring the same to be surplus land qua one T.V.Jeyachandra Naidu (to be noted, copy of the Gazette Publication has been placed before us by the writ petitioner). Another Gazette Publication dated 07.05.1980 (placed before us by the writ petitioner) is also under the same Act and the same cannot be relied on to say that said land has not been declared as surplus land that is required for public purpose. Learned State counsel substantiated his submission stating that one Ms.Rajina, wife of Mr.Rajendran who is similarly placed qua writ petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.794 of 2025 seeking patta and the same has been dismissed by this Court in and by order dated 10.01.2025;

(ii) Impugned order was made after eqnuiry.

9. We now deem it appropriate to discuss the three case laws relied on by the writ petitioner in support of points raised:

i) D.Sathish case [D.Sathish Vs. Tahsildar, Sirkali Taluka and Others reported in CDJ 1997 M