T.Ramamoorthy v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.28858 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.32374 of 2025 T. Ramamoorthy Petitioner vs.
1.
The District Collector Collectorate Buildings Salem, Tamil Nadu 2.
The District Revenue Officer District Collectorate Buildings Salem 3.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Near Fire Station Suramangalam Salem 4.
The Tahsildar Vazhapadi Taluk Office Salem District 5.
The Revenue Inspector Vazhapadi Taluk Salem District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 21.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2025 seeking for issuance of a patta in respect of land in Old Survey No.176/2 and New Survey No.349/15, located in Belur Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.
1/8
For petitioner Mr. N. Umapathi For respondents Mr. T.K. Saravanan Additional Govt. Pleader - - - - -
ORDER
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) Captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed assailing 'a notice signed on 21.07.2025 by fifth respondent - Revenue Inspector' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Scanned reproduction of the impugned order and a clean copy of the same, as placed before us, is as follows:
2/8
2.
Notwithstanding myriad grounds raised in the captioned main WP, Mr. N. Umapathi, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, predicates his campaign against the impugned notice on 3/8
the point that though the caption to the impugned notice issued by fifth respondent (Revenue Inspector) says that it has been issued 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 convenience and clarity], it directly calls upon the writ petitioner to remove alleged encroachment without show causing the writ petitioner.
3.
Issue notice to respondents.
4.
Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all five respondents and submits, on instructions, that impugned notice now stands withdrawn as it does not show cause the noticee/writ petitioner. This fair submission of learned State counsel is recorded and on the basis of this submission, we write that the impugned notice stands effaced without expression of any view or opinion on the merits of the matter.
5.
Before we proceed further, it is necessary to record a disputation. We make it clear that we record this only for the sake of completion of facts and to comprehensively capture what transpired in the hearing.
4/8
6.
Learned State counsel submitted that post issue of impugned notice, writ petitioner has removed the compound wall alone, himself. In a riposte, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that this submission is incorrect. We leave open this question as it turns heavily on facts and it is not necessary to embark upon any adjudication on this aspect of the matter to give a closure to the captioned main WP as impugned notice stands effaced. 7.
Be that as it may, learned State counsel made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the State to issue a notice afresh as regards the same subject matter either under said 1905 Act or under any other appropriate applicable statute. 8.
We accede to the aforemade request of learned State counsel and preserve the rights and contentions of the State to issue a notice afresh. Axiomatically, we also preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner, if writ petitioner is visited with a fresh notice.
9.
The narrative thus far is sufficient to give a closure to the captioned main WP by taking up the same with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List, itself.
5/8
10.
Captioned main WP stands disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner. As the impugned notice stands effaced, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat has become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (T.V.K., J.) 06.08.2025 cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No 6/8
To 1.
The District Collector Collectorate Buildings Salem Tamil Nadu 2.
The District Revenue Officer District Collectorate Buildings Salem 3.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Near Fire Station Suramangalam, Salem 4.
The Tahsildar Vazhapadi Taluk Office Salem District 5.
The Revenue Inspector Vazhapadi Taluk Salem District 7/8
M. SUNDAR, J.
and T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
cad 06.08.2025 (2/2) 8/8