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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
L.Gopalakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.376 of 2026|W.M.P.(MD)Nos.357, 358 and 360 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Paranjothi
For the Respondents: Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

Court stays eviction under Land Encroachment Act pending appeal disposal within stipulated time.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged a notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, issued without proper survey amid a boundary dispute with an adjacent landowner. An appeal against prior Section 7 proceedings remains pending before the District Collector. The court directed disposal of the appeal within three months, staying the eviction order meanwhile. The key issue was the propriety of eviction proceedings during pendency of appeal. The court observed that authorities must resolve disputes on merits before enforcement. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to dispose the appeal within three months; eviction stayed till then.

Table of Content
1. challenges to encroachment notice amid boundary dispute and pending appeal (Para 1 , 2)
2. direct appeal disposal with eviction stay (Para 3)

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

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the second respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in Na.Ka.4109/2025/a3 dated 03.12.2025 and to direct the first respondent/District Collector, Dindigul to pass orders in the petitioner's appeals dated 16.09.2025, 29.08.2025.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his adjacent land owner, based on whose complaint, the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act has been initiated as against the petitioner. He further contended that without conducting proper survey, the third respondent has issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent, and the same is pending consideration. In the interregnum, the second respondent has issued the present eviction notice. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3.In view of the above submission that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as against the order of eviction, the first respondent/District Collector is directed to dispose of the appeal, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the operation of the eviction order shall remain stayed. Thereafter, it is open to the authorities concerned to proceed further in accordance with law, depending upon the outcome of the appeal.

4.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

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