Madras High CourtWP/38507/2024disposed of

R.Sampath v. District Collector,

2025-01-02Honourable Mr Justice M. Sundar,Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR W.P.No.38507 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.41717 of 2024 R. Sampath Petitioner vs.

The District Collector Krishnagiri Krishnagiri District The Tahsildar Uthangarai Krishnagiri District The Block Development Officer K. Papparapatti Village Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment in the land comprised in S.No.69/1 measuring an extent of 1.40 acres in K. Papparapatti Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, except by due process of law.

For petitioner Mr. S. Subramanian For RR 1 & 2 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Government Advocate For R3 Mr. K. Suresh Government Advocate - - - - - 1/6

ORDER

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) Captioned main 'writ petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) pertains to 'land comprised in Survey No.69/1 (admeasuring 1.56.0 hectares or thereabouts, described as 1.40 acres by writ petitioner in the writ affidavit) in K.Papparapatti Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District' ('said land' for the sake of clarity and convenience). Mr. S. Subramanian, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that way back in 1971 (23.11.1971 to be precise) the writ petitioner's grandfather was visited with a notice under Section 7 of 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' ('said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) qua said land but thereafter there were no proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings were dropped. Notwithstanding such scenario, respondents are now disturbing the possession of writ petitioner, is learned counsel's say.

Issue notice to respondents.

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for RR 1 and 2. Mr. K. Suresh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R3.

2/6

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act has now been issued to writ petitioner. Learned State counsel has placed before us a copy of this notice and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

3/6

This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. The reason inter alia is that there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable under Section 10 (District Collector is the appellate authority) and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A (Section 10-A(3) to be precise) of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. Therefore, said 1905 Act is a self contained Code in every sense of the expression.

In the light of the narrative thus far, we find that due process of law has been resorted to. It is now for the noticee/writ petitioner to respond to the said 1905 Act notice and thereafter, the procedure laid down under said 1905 Act will follow. 8.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and depending on the cause shown by writ petitioner (in response to the show cause notice vide Section 7 of said 1905 Act), the authorities can drop the proceedings if they are satisfied with the cause shown and they can equally proceed with 4/6

removal of encroachment if that is not the case. We make it clear that rights of writ petitioner qua statutory appeal, statutory revision, etc. (if any and if that be so) are preserved. Though obvious, we further make it clear that further action will be subject to outcome of proceedings under said 1905 Act which has now been kick-started. 9.

Captioned main WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned W.M.P. stands disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 02.01.2025 Index: Yes/No NC : Yes/No cad 5/6

M. SUNDAR, J.

and K. RAJASEKAR, J.

cad To: