2026:MHC:282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.01.2026 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.No.41408 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.46374 and 46377 of 2025

1. Karupayee

2. Thangamani ... Petitioners -vs-

1. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tiruchengode Road, Namakkal.

2. The Tahsildar, Parmathiv Velur, Namakkal District.

3. The Revenue Inspector, Nallur, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.4919/2025/A1 under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and quash the same, as it is arbitrary and against principle of natural justice.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vivek For Mr.S.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Addl. Govt. Pleader *****

O R D E R

(By.S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.,)

Final Notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short ‘the Act, 1905’) in Proceedings dated

25.10.2025 is under challenge in the present writ proceedings. 2. The respondents, during the course of inspection, identified encroachments in respect of Government Poramboke lands to a larger extent of about 1.85.0 Hectares in S.No.298/2 at Nallur Village, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District. Enforcement actions were initiated. Section 7 Notice was issued affording opportunity to the petitioners to submit their explanations along with documents, if any. Thereafter, final notice under Section 6 was issued. It is not in dispute that an appeal under Section 10 would lie before the District Collector. The petitioners have not exhausted the appeal remedy contemplated under the Act, 1905.

3. Mr.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that impugned Section 6 notice is improper, since it is not a speaking order passed by the competent authority. The final order under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 must contain details regarding grounds raised and the reasons for rejection of the grounds raised by encroachers. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.27873 of 2024 dated 25.11.2024. In the event of issuing a non-speaking final order under Section 6 of the Act, 1905, the said order is liable to be set aside. It is contended that civil suit has also been instituted, seeking adverse possession and the same is pending. For all these reasons, the impugned final order under Section 6 is to be set aside.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader would strenuously oppose, by stating that Section 6 notice is a statutory final notice issued under the Act, 1905. There was no adjudication by the Tahsildar at the stage of issuance of final notice under Section 6. On identification of encroachments in public lands, enforcement actions were initiated and if the jurisdictional Tahsildar or the competent authority found that there is no justification for encroachers to occupy Government land, they are empowered to evict them summarily by issuing prior notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905. In the present case, Section 7 notice was issued and opportunity was afforded to encroachers. Since their explanations are found to be insufficient and unsatisfactory, Section 6 notice was issued. The suit, if any instituted is barred under Section 14 of the Act, 1905 and the adverse possession against Government lands cannot be claimed by encroachers in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected.

5. This Court heard the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand.

6. In order to appreciate grounds raised by the petitioners that final notice issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 must be a speaking order, it is necessary for this Court to consider the scheme under the provisions of t