The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act is a self-contained code that governs encroachment issues and preserves rights for parties to be addressed during the legal process.

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

Captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity]

has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.

2. The certiorari limb of the prayer is a challenge to 'a notice dated 10.08.2021 issued by R4 (Panchayat President, Thengalpalayam Panchayat, Vennandhur Panchayat Union, Rasipuram, Namakkal District)' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. The mandamus limb pertains to 'Survey No.17/3 in Thengalpalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which according to the writ petitioner, is a well and vari vaikkal (water body) and the mandamus plea is a direction to revamp and restore the water body.

3. Mr. K.R. Samratt, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for RR 1 and 2 and Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate for RR 3 and 4 are before us.

4. This Court heard out both sides.

5. As regards the certiorari limb, the impugned notice does not mention the provision of law under which it has been issued. Learned State counsel for RR 1 and 2 very fairly submitted that the impugned notice has been issued under Section 131 (2) of 'the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act , 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994)' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity]. Learned State counsel went on to add that the impugned notice being one under (2) of said Act means that proceedings will now have to be kickstarted under the provisions of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act , 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' [for brevity 'said 1905 Act']. This submission is recorded.

6. If proceedings under the provisions of said 1905 Act are to be kickstarted, the writ petitioner will be show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order under Section 6 after considering the writ petitioner's response and the order under Section 6 is appealable under Section 10 with a provision for further statutory revision under Section 10-A of said 1905 Act.

7. At this juncture, it is apropos to observe that 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.'

8. It is also worth pointing out that this G