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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
A. Vamanan, President M/s. Bhaktavatsalam Educational Trust – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Kancheepuram – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 2413, 1416, 41488 of 2025, W.M.P. Nos. 1654, 2720 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Srinath Srideven, S. Manuraj
For the Respondents: P.S. Raman, R.A. Gopinath, M. Suresh Kumar, D. Ravichander

Previously established rights of government over land exempted from acquisition supersede petitions claiming lack of opportunity in eviction proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus - The petitioner Trust challenged notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, citing lack of opportunity to defend against eviction proceedings for land classified as 'Thoppu Poramboke' after non-prosecution of prior writ appeals. (Para 9 and 20)

(B) Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 7 - Encroachment proceedings initiated for land exempted from acquisition - The court reiterated that previously issued orders maintain the government's rights over the land, emphasizing the encroacher's legal standing. (Paras 10, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner Trust sought land acquisition for a Polytechnic College in 1961, but certain lands were exempted, leading to encroachment issues over 19.34 acres classified as 'Thoppu Poramboke' and subsequent eviction notices.

Findings of Court:
The court established that the petitioner remains an encroacher, having failed to comply with previous orders to pay land costs, thus validating eviction proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity prior to eviction proceedings and the legality of the eviction regarding encroachment on government land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that entitlements to land had been entirely settled prior, thus any further opportunity for defense was unwarranted, affirming the ongoing eviction under established precedents and legislative provisions.

Result: W.P.Nos.2413 and 1416 of 2025 are dismissed and W.P.No.41488/2025 is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. court's determination to dismiss writ petitions based on established encroachment. (Para 1)
2. background on land acquisition and exemption affecting present claims. (Para 3 , 4)
3. discussions on due process in eviction notices and implications for future actions. (Para 9 , 10)
4. final ruling on enforcement actions concerning encroached lands. (Para 20)

ORDER :

1. W.P.No.1416 of 2025 has been instituted challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Kancheepuram, dated 10.12.2024. W.P.No.2413 of 2025 is filed challenging the notice dated 24.12.2024 issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. Notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act was issued in pursuance to the proceedings of the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 10.12.2024.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner Trust namely M/s. Bhaktavachalam Educational Trust submitted an application to the Government to acquire lands for establishing Polytechnic College to an extent of 73.43 acres in the year 1961. Acting on the representation submitted by the petitioner Trust, the Government issued notification for acquisition of 73.47 acres of land to be handed over to the petitioner Trust. However, an exemption notification was issued to exclude 19.3 acres in S.No.350/5, 354/4 & 5 and to be deleted from the acquisition proceedings in the year 1986. Accordingly, Gazette notification was made exempting 19.3 acres of lands from the Land Acquisition proceedings and the said Government poromboke lands are classified as “Thoppu Poramboke”. The balance acquired land to an extent of 54.13 acres was handed over to the petitioner Trust and they have established a Polytechnic College in a small portion of the land and running the Institution.

4. The authorities, during investigation, found that a portion of the Government land classified as “Thoppu Poramboke” was encroached upon by the petitioner Trust and a notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, in proceedings dated 22.11.1993. The said notice would show that exemption notification issued in respect of 19.3 acres of land and the said land vests with the Government absolutely. The petitioner Trust was requested to explain as to why action should not be taken for eviction in respect of illegal possession in S.No.354/4 & 5 invoking the provisions of relevant Act.

5. The said eviction notice came to be challenged in W.P.No.6860/1994 by the petitioner Trust. The Trust made a request for transfer of land measuring 19.34 acres in W.P.No.9866/1998. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the request of the petitioner. The District Collector issued an order rejecting the request of the Trust. In respect of W.P.Nos.6860/1994, 9703/1997 and 3556/1999, a common order has been passed in all the writ petitions by the learned single Judge of this Court on 26.07.2022, stating that the petitioner Trust will take over an extent of 19.3 acres of “Thoppu Poramboke” on payment of land cost to be fixed on the basis of market value as on 26.12.1995. The Trust preferred W.A.Nos.474 to 476/2004 challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petitions. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal on 11.04.2011 as under:

These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 26.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.6860 of 1994, 9703 of 1997 and 3556 of 1999. 2. The order challenged in these writ appeals was passed on 26.7.2002 and the appeal papers were presented on 14.1.2003. When the above writ appeals were posted for admission on 30.3.2004, adjournment was sought for. From that date to till this date, neither the counsel nor the appellant has taken any steps to prosecute the matter or shown any interest to argue the case for admitting the writ appeals or obtaining interim stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge at this belated point of time. Hence, the writ appeals are dis

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