A notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act can only be issued by specified authorities; incorrect issuance leads to lack of jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K .RAJASEKAR W.P.No.3177 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.3512 of 2025 M.Ilavarasi W/o.Muthu ...Petitioner Vs

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer Water Development Department Coovam Basin Sub Division Chepauk Chennai-600 005.

2. The Assistant Engineer Water Development Department Coovam River Division III Chepauk Chennai-600 005. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 21.01.2025 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 27.12.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari qua two notices / orders, one dated 27.12.2024 issued by R2 [The Assistant Engineer, Water Development Department, Coovam River Division III, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005] under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act , 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} and another dated 21.01.2025 issued by R1 [The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Development Department, Coovam Basin Sub Division, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005] under Section 6 of said 1905 Act. These two notices / orders shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'impugned orders' for the sake of brevity and clarity. Wherever necessary

27.12.2024 order of R2 shall be referred to as 'I impugned order' and 21.01.2025 order of R1 shall be referred to as 'II impugned order' for the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity.

2. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in his campaign against impugned orders submitted that I impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as R2 does not have the authority to issue such an order.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader accepted notice for both respondents and fairly submitted that R2 is neither an 'authorized officer' (within the meaning of Section 6 of said 1905 Act) nor a 'specified officer not being an authorized officer' (within the meaning of Section 7 of said 1905 Act).

5. This narrows down the scope of captioned main WP, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main WP was taken up in the Admission Board.

6. As already alluded to supra, I impugned order has been issued by R2 under Section 7 of said 1905 Act which reads as follows:

'7. Prior notice to person in occupation.- Before taking proceedings under section 6, the Collector or Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any authorized officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an authorised officer) (hereinafter referred to as the 'specified officer') as the case may be, shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorised occupation of land being the property of Government a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under section 6.

Such notice shall be served in the manner prescribed in section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864), or in such other manner as the State Government by rules or orders under section 8 may direct:

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in the case of any person unauthorisedly occupying any land, if he has bee