A court may decline to interfere with an eviction order on purely procedural grounds where the petitioner fails to establish a colorable title or valid ownership claim to government-classified land, provided that remanding the case would be a futile exercise.

O R D E R

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

22.04.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Marungapuri under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the respondents had earlier issued notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 28.10.2021. It was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.20859 of 2021. The writ petition was allowed on 23.11.2021 by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the following terms:-

“2. The writ petitioner had earlier filed W.P(MD)No.19551 of 2021 and invited an order on

01.11.2021, in which, it has been stated that though the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, is a show cause notice, the petitioner therein, had filed an appeal before the District Collector and the Collector had also entertained the appeal and dismissed the same.

3. It is to be pointed out that after Section 7 notice, there should be an enquiry as per Section 6(2), which is summary in nature and the authorised officer is to pass appropriate order. When such order is passed, it is appealable under Section 10 of the Act, before the District Collector. In this case, the learned Government Advocate is unable to say whether an enquiry was conducted.

4. The dismissal of the appeal preferred against Section 7 notice by the District Collector, cannot be an impediment, for conducting enquiry under Section 6. It appears that Section 7 notice has already been issued, which was appealed against by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, an order under Section 6 should have been passed after enquiry. The impugned notice which is issued under Section 6, does not state that there was an enquiry before the said notice was issued.

5. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry pursuant to Section 7 notice, which was issued earlier. After the enquiry by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, an order may be passed, on merits and if any such order is passed and if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to file appeal under Section 10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice issued under Section 6, is without enquiry and the same cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the impugned order is a mere repetition of the earlier order and that the direction given in W.P.(MD)No.20859 of 2021 has not been followed.

3. This submission is undoubtedly formidable and attractive.

No doubt, the third respondent has not followed the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered with on that ground.

4. It is seen that as against the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli. Even though it is not maintainable, the District Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.08.2021 and called upon the Tahsildar, Marungapuri to remove the encroachment and take possession of the land by adopting due process of law. This order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the District Collector was put to challenge by the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.19551 of 2021. No doubt, the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 23.11.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.20859 of 2021 took note of the earlier dismissal order by