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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ
N. Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
The Thasildhar Ariyalur Taluk Ariyalur District – Respondent
W.P. No.22183 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Kamadevan
For the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, Mr. V. Ramesh

Retention of procedural rights under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act while addressing eviction notices issued under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - Section 131(1)(a) and (2) - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - The writ petition was filed to challenge eviction notices alleging encroachment, contending there was no basis for the action taken. Court noted that the Revenue authorities had rights preserved for issue of show cause notice under the Land Encroachment Act, which is a self-contained code. (Paras 5-9)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court refrained from opining on the merits of the encroachment issue and emphasized the procedural rights of both parties.

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners received eviction notices claiming encroachment but asserted there was none.

Findings of Court:
The court underscored the importance of legal procedure under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and preserved the rights of both parties for further proceedings.

Issues: The main issue was whether the eviction notices were justified given the petitioners' assertion that no encroachment occurred.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to the legal framework established by the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, affirming that rights of all parties were to be duly considered through the proper legal processes.

Result: Writ petition disposed of as closed with preservation of rights of both parties.

Table of Content
1. establishment of the tamil nadu land encroachment act as a self-contained code. (Para 8 , 9)
2. preservation of rights and legal processes for both parties. (Para 10)
3. court preserved legal rights for both parties. (Para 11)

8. In this regard, before proceeding further, it is deemed appropriate to write that this Court, in order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.8355 and 8357 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.8324 and 8237 of 2022 thereat, respectfully adverting to the Girnar principle, i.e., declaration of law made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. To be noted, Girnar principle is one where Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the law as regards what would be a self- contained Code. It was 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 the statute with dependence on other legislations being absent or at best minimal, is a self-contained Code.

9. In this context, as regards said 1905 Act, inter alia, 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. Such a three-tier machinery has been put in place to check unauthorised occupation of lands which are the properties of the Government by imposition of penal or prohibitory assessment or charge, after giving adequate and ample opportunity to a person who is alleged to be in occupation of public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, tanks and such other properties of Government. Suffice to say that said 1905 Act is clearly a self-contained Code.

10. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned main WP stands vastly descoped and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioners and learned State counsel for R1 and R2, captioned main WP is taken up.

11. This Court is of the considered view that to give a closure to the captioned main WP, it will suffice to record the stated position of the learned State counsel (which we have done supra).

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top