Velatal Industries Private Limited v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI and W.M.P.No.18494 of 2024 in W.P.No.16813 of 2024 Velatal Industries Private Limited 115, Tiruchengode Road Pallipalayam Namakkal District Tamil Nadu - 638 006.
.. Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Revenue Department Chennai.
2. The District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal - 637 001.
3. The Tahsildar Komarapalayam Taluk Komarapalayam 638 183 Namakkal District.
1/8
4. The Revenue Inspector Pallipalayam Pallipalayam - 638 006 Namakkal District.
.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminating in the Notice No.Nil dated 04.01.2024 issued by the 4th respondent herein and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to 're-route' the Elanthaikuttai Waterway, Namakkal District as prayed by the petitioner.
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Haribabu For Respondents :
Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate *****
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.Sundar, J.) Captioned 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed assailing a notice issued by R4 {signed by R4 on 04.01.2024} which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned notice'.
2. Mr.Aravind Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel instructed by counsel on record for writ petitioner Mr.Haribabu is before us. 2/8
3. Learned Senior Counsel, adverting to impugned notice submitted that even according to impugned notice alleged encroachment is only putting up a compound wall. We refrain from expressing any view or opinion on the same as the impugned notice says 'Rw;WRth; mikj;J Mf;fpukpg;g[' as we would now be relegating the matter to authorities under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity}.
4. Issue notice regarding admission.
5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for all four respondents.
6. Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the impugned notice is under Section 7 of said Act and post impugned notice Section 6 proceedings have been made and Section 6 proceedings i.e., proceedings under Section 6 of said Act have been signed by R3 (Tahsildar, Komarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District) on 19.06.2024. 3/8
7. Mr.V.Haribabu, learned counsel instructing learned Senior counsel very fairly placed before us Section 6 proceedings and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
4/8
8. In the light of the narrative thus far it comes to light that the mechanism under said Act has been put in motion. We are of the considered view that the said Act is a self contained code. There is more than one reason for us to write so but that reason which is of relevance qua case on hand is, now, for the writ petitioner there is a provision for an appeal vide Section 10 of said Act and appeal lies to R2. To be noted, there is further provision for revision under Section 10-A of said Act.
9. Learned Senior counsel submitted that writ petitioner and its workmen are under imminent threat of dispossession and dislodgment and urged for interim protection. We again refrain from expressing any view or opinion and we deem it appropriate to write that it will suffice to say that there is a provision for interim stay vide Section 10-B of said Act and it is for the writ petitioner to work out remedies under said Act.
10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there are time lines for filing an appeal but writ petitioner company has chosen to file captioned WP and therefore, the time spent in captioned WP may please be excluded for the purpose of filing the appeal. We make it clear that it is open to writ petitioner to seek recourse under Section 14 of Limitation 5/8
Act, 1963 and seek condonation of delay also but it is for the Appellate Authority to take a call on such pleas on its own merits and in accordance with law.
11. Captioned WP disposed of as closed albeit with preservation of rights of writ petitioner i.e., rights of writ petitioner to prefer an appeal and seek stay thereat under Section 10-B of said Act. Though obvious, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on merits of the matter. Consequently, captioned WMP is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.J.) (K.G.T.J.) 26.06.2024 Index:Yes Speaking mk 6/8
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Revenue Department Chennai.
2. The District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal - 637 001.
3. The Tahsildar Komarapalayam Taluk Komarapalayam 638 183 Namakkal District.
4. The Revenue Inspector Pallipalayam Pallipalayam - 638 006 Namakkal District.
7/8
M.SUNDAR.J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J., mk 26.06.2024 (1/2) 8/8