Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. SURENDER, JJ
K.Manmathan S/o.Kandasamy Gounder – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar Mohanur Taluk Namakkal District. – Respondent
W.P.No.13422 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.14641 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Vivek for Mr.Senthil .S
For the Respondents: Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader

The court held that jurisdiction to invoke the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act lies with the Tahsildar over Government Poromboke lands, and disputed ownership claims should be resolved through a statutory appeal.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 6 - Writ petition challenging the final notice under the 1905 Act as issued without jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings on Government Poromboke lands discussed - Rights of the petitioner in relation to temple property and the necessity of an appeal under Section 10 of the 1905 Act emphasized. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 5, 7)

(B) Natural justice - Violation claimed on behalf of the petitioner regarding the final notice - The court clarified that disputed facts should be addressed in the statutory appeal process rather than in the writ petition. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed by an individual claiming ownership of land occupied by a temple and challenging the notice issued by the Tahsildar under the 1905 Act, asserting that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction over the temple property.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the issue of disputed facts regarding rights to the property is to be determined by the District Collector upon appeal, hence dismissing the writ petition.

Issues: Whether the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to act under the 1905 Act concerning land claimed by a temple and whether the writ petition was an appropriate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court ruled that since the disputed ownership could be resolved through a statutory appeal, it would be unnecessary for the court to intervene at the writ stage, emphasizing proper legal channels for such disputes.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition challenges jurisdiction based on land ownership. (Para 1)
2. arguments on land ownership and jurisdiction under the 1905 act. (Para 2 , 3)
3. district collector to resolve disputed facts via statutory appeal. (Para 4 , 6)

O R D E R

[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the final notice issued under Section 6 of “the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)” {hereinafter “1905 Act” for the sake of brevity}.

2. Mr.V.Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that a temple is situated on the subject property and therefore, the land belongs to the temple and thus, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of 1905 Act.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader would oppose by stating that even on Government Poromboke lands, Temples are situated and as far as those lands are concerned, the Temples are also constructed on the encroached property and the fact regarding the construction of temples is mentioned only in the remarks column. This fact would not confer any right on the petitioner to claim ownership, nor the revenue authorities have taken the land away. Since the land is classified as Government Poromboke, the Tahsildar is empowered to invoke the provisions of the 1905 Act.

4. Be that as it may, such disputed facts may be raised by the petitioner by preferring an appeal underSection 10of 1905 Act before the District Collector. The District Collector shall verify the revenue records, afford an opportunity to the temple administration and take a final decision in respect of the rights claimed between the parties. 5. When the statutory appeal contemplates an enquiry to be conducted by the District Collector, it is unnecessary for the High Court to resolve the disputed facts, which are to be undertaken based on the documents and evidence available on record. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation along with documents, by preferring an appeal underSection 10of 1905 Act before the District Collector.

6. The District Collector shall issue notice to all concerned parties, including the temple administration, conduct enquiry and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. SURENDER, JJK.Manmathan S/o.Kandasamy Gounder – AppellantVersusThe Tahsildar Mohanur Taluk Namakkal District. – RespondentW.P.No.13422 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.14641 of 2026

The court held that jurisdiction to invoke the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act lies with the Tahsildar over Government Poromboke lands, and disputed ownership claims should be resolved through a statutory appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. SURENDER, JJ
K.Manmathan S/o.Kandasamy Gounder – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar Mohanur Taluk Namakkal District. – Respondent
W.P.No.13422 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.14641 of 2026