N.Ramu v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 10/7/2015 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P. No.20547 of 2015 and M.P. No.1 of 2015 N. Ramu ... Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector Collector office Nagapattinam.
2. The Revenue Inspector Velankanni Kizhvelour Taluk Office Nagapattinam District.
...
Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice of the Revenue Inspector, Velankanni Town Panchayat, Kevilour Taluk, Nagapattinam District dated 11/6/2015 to the petitioner after calling for the records.
For petitioner ...
Mr.B.Ramamoorthy For respondents ...
Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)
Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
Being aggrieved by the notice dated 15/6/2015 issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (for short "the Act") calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition, questioning the legality of the said notice on the ground that the same has been issued, directing eviction and without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Section 7 of the Act contemplates issuance of a notice and also affording an opportunity of hearing before passing an order / notice under Section 6 of the Act. The issue with regard to purported encroachment in the area came up for consideration in W.P. No.10246 of 2014.
A Division Bench of this Court directed the Tahsildar, Chengalpet to consider the representation dated 04.07.2013, made by one K.S. Rajan, the petitioner therein and take action after notice to all the parties. The authority, without notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner against whom allegation of encroachment was made, passed the impugned order. Thus, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that on a perusal of the impugned notice, as there is no reference of any notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, it appears that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner.
Thus, the impugned notice may be treated as notice under Section 7 of the Act, granting reasonable time to the petitioner to file his reply to the same. Thereafter, the authorities be permitted to take action on merits and in accordance with law.
We are of the view that the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader is reasonable. If there is no notice under Section 7 of the Act, the impugned notice which is issued under Section 6 of the Act be treated as notice under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner is accordingly granted two weeks time to file his reply, putting forward his case before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities, after considering the petitioner's reply, shall pass appropriate orders and take action in accordance with law and on their own merits. If it is found that there is encroachment, necessary steps for removal of the same shall be taken within a further period of three weeks.
6.
With the above direction and observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Costs made easy. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mvs.
TO
1. The District Collector Collector office Nagapattinam.
2. The Revenue Inspector Velankanni Kizhvelour Taluk Office Nagapattinam District.
W.P. No.20547 of 2015