Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits or granting injunctions related to Government Poramboke land encroachment without exhausting statutory appeal and revision remedies under the Act.

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the plaint in O.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and strike off the same.

2. The revision petitioner/6^th defendant states that the 1^st respondent herein had filed a Suit before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur in O.S.No.21 of 2021 for the relief of declaration, declaring the 3^rd item of the scheduled property in S.No.386/9 i.e., the lane belongs to the 1^st respondent and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner and other from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the 3^rd item of suit scheduled property which is a Lane and classified as Government Poramboke land in the revenue records.

3. The revision petitioner/6^th defendant having its office adjoining to the lands using the common land along with the other adjacent owner. The plaintiff is the encroacher of the Government land and constructed a building. Therefore, the 4^th defendant/Tahsildar issued an encroachment notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 against which the 1^st respondent filed W.P. (MD)No.146312 of 2020, in which he had stated that the subject matter of the land is a 'Natham land' and seeks patta. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the Tahsildar to call for an explanation to the 1^st respondent / 1^st plaintiff within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On 15.12.2020 the 1^st respondent / Plaintiff has made explanation to the 5^th respondent on receipt of the same 5^th respondent should pass order within 6 weeks. Thereafter, the Tahsildar of Rajapalayam under a memo no e/f/m 6/2596/2020 dated 06.01.2021 holding that passed an order in S.No.386/9 to an extent of 0.00.13.0 sq.ft of land has been classified as Government Poramboke land in the revenue records and the lane and rejected the request of the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff remove the encroachment.

4. The revision petitioner/6^th defendant further argued that as per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 , any decision or order passed by a Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar under this Act, an appeal shall be preferred before the District Collector and to the Commissioner of Land Administration from any decision or order of a District Collector passed otherwise than on appeal. Section 10 (A) of the , contemplates any decision or order passed under Revision, this Act may be revised either suo motu or on (a) application by the District Collector, if such decision or order was passed by a Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar or Collector, (b) by the commissioner of land administration if such decsion or order passed by any officer other then the appellate authority, (c) by the State Government if such decision or order was passed by the appellate authority or the Commissioner of Land Administration

5. He further argued that under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 , there is a bar of jurisdiction of Courts notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no order passed or proceeding taken by any officer or authority or the State Government under this Act shall be called in question in any court, in any suit or application and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority or the State Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act and he had filed a suit seeking exclusive right over the property by misleading the court by stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and