Raju vs District Collector - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43790

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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Raju – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
W.P No. 20207 of 2026|WMP Nos.21645 and 21646 OF 2026

Important Points

A challenge to a show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is premature and not maintainable, requiring the authority to consider the objections filed by the noticee before taking final action.

Subject

Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905: S.7

Headnote

The case concerns the maintainability of a challenge against a notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned notice, claiming it was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court determined that challenging a show cause notice at the initial stage is premature and not maintainable. The core issue was whether the petitioner could directly challenge a Section 7 notice under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner had already filed an objection, the statutory process must be exhausted, holding that the proper course of action is for the authority to consider the objection before finalizing the proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's objection before passing final orders.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Govind Chandrasekhar
For the Respondents: L.S.M.Hasan Fizal

Table of Content
1. prematurity of challenges to show cause notices. (Para 1 , 2)

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Call for the records of the impugned notice in File No.Na.Ka No. Nil dated 25.03.2026, issued by the 3rd Respondent under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and quash the same as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

For Petitioner : Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

Order

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

The petitioner challenges notice dated 25.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. It is well settled that the challenge to such notice at this stage is premature and not maintainable. The petitioner has given a reply / objection in response to the Section 7 notice. We direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's objection before passing final orders.

3. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.