Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M.Subramaniam, A.D.Maria Clete, JJ.
M.Puthisigamani - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), Construction & Maintenance and ors. - Respondents
W.P(MD)No.18496 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.15721 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges a statutory notice of encroachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner must respond to notice; encroachments are in public interest. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed; action to remove encroachments authorized. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the notice issued by the first respondent/the Assistant Divisional Engineer (State Highways) in proceedings dated 15.07.2024 under Section 28 of the TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT , 2001.
2.The State Highways authorities identified encroachments in the Highways property and consequently issued a notice under Section 28 of the TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT , 2001. The petitioner has not responded to the notice but challenged the same in the present Writ Petition.
3.No writ against a statutory notice issued for the removal of encroachments in the Highways property is entertainable unless such notice has been issued by an incompetent authority.
4.In the present case, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, by invoking Section 28 of the TAMIL NADU HIGHWAYS ACT 2001, issued the notice. Therefore, the petitioner is expected to submit his explanation/defence statement, if any, along with the necessary documents to the respondents for the purpose of taking a final decision.
5.It is needless to state that encroachments in the Highways are to be removed in the public interest, since such encroachments would result in accidents and would cause inconvenience to the general public and road users.
6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation/defence statement within a period of ten (10) days from today. On receipt of any such explanation, the respondents shall consider the same and take a final decision and thereafter proceed to remove the encroachments in the Highways property. The enforcement actions are to be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.
7.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
A statutory notice under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act for encroachments is valid unless issued by an incompetent authority, emphasizing the necessity of public safety and removal of encroachments.
Highway authorities must consider petitioner's representation and documents before enforcing removal of identified encroachments under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Highways Act following final notice.
Authorities must mandatorily consider timely representations under Section 28 proviso before issuing final encroachment removal orders.
The court ruled that a notice regarding encroachment must be treated as a Show Cause Notice, requiring a response before any coercive action can be taken.
Writ Petition against issuance of a notice is not maintainable unless issued by incompetent authority.
Representation under Section 28(2) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act must be considered before final orders and eviction.
Notices for removal of encroachments must include specific survey numbers to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and allow for effective response.
The authority must consider representations before issuing final orders, and such consideration must be reflected in the order to ensure procedural fairness.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
