Kavitha v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.No.31226 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos.34964 and 34966 of 2025 Kavitha Petitioner vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (A1) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.
The District Collector Villupuram District Ariyalur 3.
The Tahsildar Vikravandi Taluk Vikravandi Villupuram District 4.
The Assistant Director Animal Husbandry Department Villupuram Villupuram District 5.
Alamelu Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 in Na.Ka.No.91/E/2022-1 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to make correction in the FMB in S.No.19 pursuant to his proceedings dated 19.01.2024 in Na.Ka.No.A2/111/2024. For petitioner Mr. V. Sivaraman For RR 1 to 4 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) Captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a prayer seeking issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.
2.
In and vide the certiorari limb, a notice dated 17.07.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.91/E/2022_2 issued by fourth respondent (Assistant Director) being a notice 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] which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned notice', has been assailed.
3.
In and vide the mandamus limb, a direction to third respondent (Tahsildar) has been sought regarding correction in the FMB based on proceedings of third respondent (signed by third respondent on 05.02.2024 which has been wrongly mentioned as 19.01.2024 in the prayer) bearing reference Na.Ka.A2/111/2024.
4.
Scanned reproduction of impugned notice is as follows:
5.
Impugned notice suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction is learned counsel's say as regards the certiorari limb and inaction qua 05.02.2024 proceedings of third respondent is learned counsel's say as regards the mandamus limb.
6.
Issue notice to official respondents (respondents 1 to 4). In the light of the order which this Court proposes to make, notice qua fifth respondent is dispensed with.
7.
Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice for official respondents (respondents 1 to 4), very fairly submits that this Court vide C.Sivanandam case [C. Sivanandam vs. District Collector and 6 others vide W.P.No.27887 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.27176 of 2022 thereat decided on 26.03.2025], has dealt with jurisdiction qua Section 7 notice. Relevant paragraph which contains an adumbration of authorities qua issue of Section 7 notice is contained at paragraph 5 and the same reads as follows:
'5.
A careful perusal of the language in which Section 7 of said 1905 Act is couched, makes it clear that a notice under Section 7 can be issued only by 6 categories of authorities and they are: i.
Collector;
ii.
Tahsildar;
iii. Deputy Tahsildar;
iv. Revenue Inspector;
v.
Authorized officer; and vi. Specified Officer other than authorized officer.' 8.
Learned State counsel further fairly submits that fourth respondent is neither an 'authorised officer' nor 'specified officer' other than the 'authorised officer'. Obviously, fourth respondent is not Collector, Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector. Therefore, on the short point of lack of jurisdiction on the part of fourth respondent, impugned notice is dislodged i.e., set aside/quashed. To be noted, impugned notice is being set aside only on the jurisdictional point and therefore, there is no expression of any view or opinion by us on the merits of the matter. In this view of the matter, it is open to State to issue Section 7 notice afresh, if so advised and if so desired, on the same subject by a competent authority. 9.
This takes this order to the mandamus limb. As regards the mandamus limb, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the Taluk Deputy Surveyor conducted a survey on 20.02.2025, survey report is with third respondent and third respondent will pass orders, one way or the other, as expeditiously as the official business of third respondent permits but in any event within eight weeks from today, i.e., on or before
16.10.2025. This is recorded as an undertaking given to this Court by third respondent. This answers the mandamus limb of the captioned main WP. 10.
Ergo, the sequitur is certiorari limb is allowed, mandamus limb is answered as above and captioned main WP thus stands disposed of. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petitions thereat are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 21.08.2025 cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No
To 1.
The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (A1) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.
The District Collector Villupuram District Ariyalur 3.
The Tahsildar Vikravandi Taluk Vikravandi Villupuram District 4.
The Assistant Director Animal Husbandry Department Villupuram Villupuram District
M. SUNDAR, J.
and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
cad 21.08.2025