A writ petition challenging a notice is not maintainable after availing statutory remedies through an appeal.

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. It is seen from the records that the writ petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6674 of 2026 for issuance of a writ of mandamus direct the first respondent to consider his representation dated 09.02.2026 for the very same relief.

3. This Court by an order dated 12.03.2026 passed the following order:-

“3.On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that action under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has already been initiated against the petitioner by the third respondent.

4.In such circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate appellate authority, namely, the District Collector, in the manner known to law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”

4.On merits, the Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. According to the petitioner, he has already filed an appeal challenging the notice issued under Section 6, and his grievance is that the said appeal has not been taken up for consideration till date. Since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the competent authority against the Section 6 notice, the present writ petition challenging the Section 7 notice is not maintainable.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.

10,000/-. The petitioner shall pay a costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Women Lawyers Association, attached to this Bench for thepurpose of maintaining the Creche maintained by them. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

6. While the Court was dictating the order, Mr. T.T. Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, repeatedly interfered and attempted to interrupt the proceedings of the Court. Such conduct amounts to interference with the administration of justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that action should be considered against him for causing disturbance in the course of judicial proceedings.

7. Post the matter on 06.04.2026 for filing an affidavit explaining as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall file an explanation as to why he should not be proceeded against for contempt for repeatedly interfering with the Court proceedings, particularly while the Court was dictating orders.

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]

26.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am To

1.The District Collector, Theni Collectorate Office, Theni District.

2.The Revenue Inspector, Aundipatti, 3.The Tahsildar, Aundipatti, N.SATHISH KUMAR , J .

and M.JOTHIRAMAN , J .

am ORDER MADE IN DATED : 26.03.2026