Failure to provide sufficient time for response to notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act invalidates further coercive action.

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

Though a very expansive prayer has been made, Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel for writ petitioners very fairly submitted that he would predicate his campaign in the captioned 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] on the point that sufficient time has not been given to the writ petitioners to respond to a notice 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) .

2. Elaborating on the above point, learned counsel drew our attention to a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act issued by R5. This notice is dated 17.03.2025 but learned counsel submits that it has been served on the first writ petitioner only on 27.03.2025. It was pointed out that the notice calls upon the noticee to respond on or before 31.03.2025 which leaves only three clear days for the first writ petitioner to respond.

3. Mr.K.Suresh, learned Government Advocate for respondents pointed out that the first writ petitioner in any event has responded to Section 7 notice by way of a detailed reply dated 01.04.2025. To be noted, 01.04.2025 detailed response of the writ petitioners is before us as part of the case file.

4. It is submitted that in the interregnum, the property which is subject matter of Section 7 notice has been partly demolished.

5. We carefully considered the submissions made on both sides.

6. Following Girnar Principle i.e., Girnar Traders (3) Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, this Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self contained code. This is vide order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.8355 and 8357 of 2022 reported in Neutral Citation [2025:MHC:1162] and relevant paragraph is paragraph No.7 which reads as follows:

'7. In Girnar Traders (3) Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law qua self contained Code and held that a statute which is a complete legislation with regard to the purpose for which it is enacted and provides for complete machinery to deal with purposes sought to be achieved by law with dependence on other legislations being absent or at best is minimal is a self contained Code. Applying Girnar principle, this Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self-contained Code. The reason inter-alia is that there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable under Section 10 [District Collector is the appellate authority] and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10 -A of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10 -B of said 1905 Act. Therefore, said 1905 Act is a self-contained Code in every sense of the expression.'

7. The scheme of said 1905 Act should specify the lands so occupied and call upon the noticee to show-cause before a certain date as to why he/she should not be proceeded against vide Section 6 of said 1905 Act.

This show-cause should be by giving the noticee a reasonable time.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter, we find that three days is not reasonable time. In any event, the noticee has responded as alluded to supra. This means that the response of the noticee should be considered and order should be made under Section 6 of said 1905 Act, that not having been done, there cannot be coercive action.

9.