Eviction orders under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act must be reasoned and adhere to procedural fairness, requiring consideration of objections raised by the alleged encroacher.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was delivered by A.D. Maria Clete, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The present writ petition challenges the eviction order dated 11.11.2024, issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by the second respondent, the Tahsildar, Andipatti Taluk.

3. The property in Survey No.911/20, Kovilpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District, belonged to the petitioner's grandfather namely Vellaiyathevar. After the demise of his grandfather, the said property was inherited by his father, namely Peya Devar. The property in S.Nos. 911/20 and 911/1 are classified as Natham in the revenue records. Patta has been issued to his father in respect of the property in S.No.911/20. The petitioner inherited this property after the demise of his father. The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the property for over 30 years. A house was constructed by the petitioner and his father about 30 years ago, with an additional 60-year-old structure on the land.

4. The petitioner would submit that one Anbalagan encroached upon a public pathway situated on the west side of his property. One Saravanan and Sakthivel, on behalf of the village people, had filed a suit in O.S.No.130 of 2022 against the said Anbalagan. To divert the said issue, the said Anbalagan had approached the respondents and given a complaint as if the petitioner had encroached the property in S.No 911/1. Pursuance to the said complaint, the 3rd respondent had issued a notice, dated 01.10.2024 to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for removal of encroachment in respect of S.No 911/1 and directed him to submit an explanation within 15 days. The petitioner had challenged the same in W.P(MD)No.24593 of 2024. This Court had passed the order on granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate objection to the Tahsildar. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.10.2024 stating that he resides in his property in S.No.911/20, whereas the Section 7 Notice is issued regarding S.No. 911/1. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.90 of 2024, which is pending. Without considering the petitioner’s representation and conducting a survey, the 2nd respondent had passed an eviction order regarding the property in S.No 911/1 under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905. Immediately, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10 of the said Act. However, the 2nd respondent insisted that they would remove the alleged encroachment immediately. Aggrieved by the impugned order of eviction under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The petitioner raised the following grounds: The impugned eviction order is a non-speaking order, as it fails to provide reasons or address the petitioner's submissions. The land is classified as "Natham" and does not vest with the government, making the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, inapplicable. No proper survey or verification was conducted before passing the eviction order, rendering the process flawed.

6. When the case was heard on 21.11.2024, this Court issued the following order:

“Though the petitioner herein had submitted his explanation to the show cause notice under Section of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), final orders of eviction passed under Section 6 of the Act does not reflect consideration of his explanation. Such an order therefore is deemed to be a non-speaking order, which cannot be sustained in the eye