Balasubramani v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.No.3721 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.3808 of 2023 1.

Balasubramani 2.

Ramakrishnan Petitioners vs.

1.

The District Collector Collectorate Building Tiruppur District 2.

The Tahsildar Udumalpet Tiruppur District 3.

The Revenue Inspector Udumalpet Circle Udumalpet Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct enquiry in the appeal and dispose of petitioner's appeal dated 30.01.2023 within a time frame and consequently, direct the second respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioners as per the representation dated 25.01.2023. For petitioners Mr. B. Kumarasamy For respondents Mr. K. Suresh Government Advocate

ORDER

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) The kernel of the captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] is writ petitioners' representation to R1 (District Collector) dated 30.01.2023 which has been described as an 'appeal'. A scanned reproduction of this 30.01.2023 representation is as follows:

2.

Mr. B. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for writ petitioners, very fairly submitted that though the writ petitioners were visited with a notice dated 23.01.2023 (notice from R3) under Section 7 of 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity], to the writ petitioners' knowledge, no order under Section 6 has been made.

3.

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents, in his usual fairness, submitted that aforereferred 30.01.2023 representation of writ petitioners to R1 can now be treated as writ petitioners' response to the aforereferred Section 7 notice of R3 (notice dated 23.01.2023) so that orders under Section 6 can be made either by R2 (Tahsildar) or any other appropriate competent authority. 4.

In the light of the stated position of the learned State counsel, the legal drill at hand has become fairly simple and we give a closure to the captioned main WP (by taking up the captioned main WP with the consent of learned counsel on both sides) by writing that the aforereferred 30.01.2023 representation of the writ petitioners shall now be treated as writ petitioners' response to Section 7 notice dated 23.01.2023 and R2 or any other competent authority shall make order under Section 6 which shall be duly served on the writ petitioners within seven working days from the date of

the order. Though obvious, we deem it appropriate to add that coercive action (if any and if that be so) will be subject to and depending on Section 6 order to be made.

5.

In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to write that this Court, in C.Gopinathan case reported in 2025:MHC:1162 (order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.8355 and 8357 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.8324 and 8237 of 2022 thereat), respectfully following Girnar principle, i.e., declaration of law made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, held that said 1905 Act is a self-contained Code. Girnar principle is that if a statute provides for a complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by that law and its dependence on other legislations is either absent or minimal, such a statute is a self- contained Code. 6.

The eco-system of said 1905 Act, i.e., the purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act is to lay down a procedure for eviction of encroachment of lands belonging to the Government. As regards said 1905 Act, inter alia, there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order under section 6 (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable.

Section 10 is the appeal provision and inter alia District Collector is the appellate authority and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. This order of Revisional Authority is obviously subject to judicial review. This is the legal architecture of the machinery put in place to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act. Such a three-tier machinery has been put in place to check unauthorised occupation of lands which are the properties of the Government (besides imposition of penal or prohibitory assessment or charge), after giving adequate and ample opportunity to a person who is alleged to be in occupation of public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, tanks and such other properties of Government. 7.

The purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act and the architecture of the machinery put in place to achieve the same, when tested on the touchstone of Girnar principle, leaves us with the view that said 1905 Act is a self-contained Code which provides for complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved with no dependence on other legislations or at the highest minimal dependence on other legislations. Suffice to say that said 1905 Act is clearly a self-contained Code.

8.

Captioned main WP stands disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner. As we have made it clear that coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be subject to and depending on the order to be made under Section 6 of said 1905 Act, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat becomes otiose and the same is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 07.07.2025 cad Index: Yes/No NC : Yes/No

M. SUNDAR, J.

and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cad To 1.

The District Collector Collectorate Building Tiruppur District 2.

The Tahsildar Udumalpet Tiruppur District 3.

The Revenue Inspector Udumalpet Circle Udumalpet 07.07.2025