Jayanthi v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.No.5829 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.6416 of 2025 1.

Jayanthi Chellaponnu Valarmathi 4.

Mangaiyarkarasi 5.

Krishnaveni 6.

Gomathi 7.

Rajakumari 8.

Gayathri 9.

Meenakshi 10.

Amudha 11.

Parvathi 12.

Prema 13.

Ananthi 14.

Chitarasi 15.

Krishnammal 16.

Shanthi 17.

Kalyani 18.

Thavamani 19.

Mallika 20.

Thaiyalnayaki 21.

Shanthi 22.

Shanthi 23.

Thamayandi 24.

Manikandan 25.

Thenaruvi 26.

Vasantha 27.

Usha 28.

Suganya Page Nos.1/8

29.

Murugesan 30.

Valli 31.

Premavathi 32.

Gomathi 33.

Ramachandran Petitioners vs.

1.

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore The Sub Collector Chidambaram Cuddalore District The Tahsildar Chidambaram Taluk Chidambaram Cuddalore District 4.

Balakrishnan 5.

Chidambaram Neernilaigal Paadhukaapu Mattrum Samoogapani Sangam represented by its President M. Senguttuvan No.2D, Saradharam Apartment Theradi Kadai Street Chidambaram 608 001 Cuddalore District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A4/574/2024 dated 07.02.2025 and quash the same. Page Nos.2/8

For petitioners Mr. C. Prakasam For RR 1 to 3 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.] The prayer in the captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) is for issue of a writ of certiorari qua 'order dated 07.02.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.A4/574/2024 made by R2 (Sub Collector, Chidambaram)' (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for writ petitioners, submits that the impugned order is contrary to orders of 'National Green Tribunal' (hereinafter 'NGT' for the sake of brevity) in O.A.No.125 of 2021 (SZ) and the interlocutory applications thereat. It was pointed out that the impugned order is predicated on orders of NGT.

Issue notice to official respondents, viz., RR 1 to 3. Page Nos.3/8

4.

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for RR 1 to 3 and submits that pattas granted to the writ petitioners have been cancelled as according to learned State counsel, they are encroachments.

5.

Nothwithstanding the aforesaid rival submissions, we find that the impugned order has been made without putting the writ petitioners on notice. To put it differently, the impugned order is one of cancellation of pattas but it has been made without putting on notice the writ petitioners in whose favour pattas have been issued. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order deserves to be dislodged by issue of a writ of certiorari on this short point. 6.

To be noted, learned State counsel has no material to demonstrate that writ petitioners were put on notice before cancellation of pattas. On the contrary, the writ petitioners have been visited with notices under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' (for brevity 'said 1905 Act') post cancellation of pattas vide impugned order. Page Nos.4/8

7.

In the light of the narrative thus far, following order is made:

(i) Impugned order of R2 dated 07.02.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.A4/574/2024 is set aside on the short point that writ petitioners have not been put on notice before cancellation of pattas;

(ii) We are not expressing any view or opinion on the proceedings before NGT or orders made by NGT; (iii) All the rights and contentions of the writ petitioners are preserved when they are put on notice for cancellation of patta proceedings which, learned State counsel submits, will be done within 3 weeks from today i.e., by 14.03.2025;

(iv) When writ petitioners are put on notice, RR 4 and 5 shall also be put on notice and given an opportunity. This preserves the rights of RR 4 and 5 and therefore, there is no impediment in the captioned main WP being disposed of (To be noted, nothing adverse to private respondents is mentioned in the instant order); (v) Notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act issued to the writ petitioners shall be rolled back; and Page Nos.5/8

(vi) Subject to and depending on the outcome of the patta cancellation proceedings, it is open to the State to issue notices under Section 7 of said 1905 Act afresh or proceed under other appropriate applicable statute. Captioned main WP is allowed albeit with aforementioned observations and directives.

Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 21.02.2025 cad Index :

Yes/No NC :

Yes/No Page Nos.6/8

To:

1.

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore The Sub Collector Chidambaram Cuddalore District The Tahsildar Chidambaram Taluk Chidambaram Cuddalore District Page Nos.7/8

M.SUNDAR, J.

and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

cad 21.02.2025 Page Nos.8/8