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

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 44000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 29.10.2021 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM W.P. No.18064 of 2021 &

W.M.P.Nos.19295 & 19296 of 2021 (Heard through VC)

P.M.R.Kannan .. Petitioner Versus The Executive Officer, Thirukoilur Town Panchayat, Thirukovilur. .. Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.292/2018/A2, dated 03.08.2021 and consequential order in proceedings Na.Ka.292/2018/A2 dated 18.08.2021, quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

For petitioner : Mrs.R.Poornima For respondent : Mr.Richardson Wilson Government Counsel

ORDER

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J., This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Executive Officer, Thirukoilur Town Panchayat, Thirukovilur under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu land Encroachment Act.

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 13.09.2021, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of three weeks. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 17.09.2021 for clarification.

3. Mrs.R.Poornima, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the land under the occupation of the petitioner is classified as Natham land and the property is under the enjoyment of the petitioner and his forefathers for a long number of years. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has no right or authority to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2019.

4. In the decision referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court has accepted the contention that the Executive Officer of Ulundurpet Town Panchayat, who was the respondent in that Writ Petition did not have authority to issue notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. This Court has consistently taken similar stand in other cases also.

5. Per contra Mr.Richardson Wilson, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that as per the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act not only the Revenue Authorities, but also the respondent has power to initiate proceedings to remove the encroacher. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act in support of his submission.

6. Even though this ground was not raised when the matter was heard earlier, we permitted the counsel to argue this point, since it goes to the root of the matter.

7. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act reads as follows:-

"6. Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc. - (1) Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under section 3 [or section 3- A] may be summarily evicted by the Collector, [or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the 'authorized officer')] and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector [or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector [or subject to his control by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector [or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] may direct.

(2) Mode of eviction. - An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely: - By serving a notice in the manner provided in section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the Collector [or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or the authorized officer] may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Collector [or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer] shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the ca

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top