Arumugam vs The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.901 of 2019|W.M.P.(MD)No.727 of 2019|W.M.P.(MD)No.728 of 2019

Important Points

Notice under Section 7 mandatory before eviction order under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905: S.6, S.7

Headnote

The petitioner challenged an eviction order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without prior notice under Section 7. The court found that mandatory notice under Section 7 was not issued, as admitted in the counter affidavit. The impugned order was quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure. Issues framed centered on procedural compliance under Sections 6 and 7. Ratio decidendi emphasized that notice under Section 7 is a prerequisite before Section 6 order. Writ petition allowed, no costs.

Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.SA.Iniyavan Abdullah, for M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondent:Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate.

Table of Content
1. challenges eviction order under section 6. (Para 1)
2. section 7 notice mandatory; order quashed. (Para 2)

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The writ petitioner herein challenges the order dated

27.11.2018 passed by the Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed on a short ground.

2. It is well settled that before passing an order under Section 6 of the Act, notice under Section 7 of the Act must be given. In the case on hand, this notice has not been given. A specific ground has also been taken to this effect in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent does not meet this ground. It is not the case of the respondent that notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued. Hence the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. This writ petition stands allowed. No costs.