R. Thiyagarajan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE and WMP(MD) Nos.22576 and 22577 of 2024 R.Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District..

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No. A5/882/2024 dated 21.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader 1/6

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. Final order passed under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is put under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. When the Deputy Tahsildar was of the view that the petitioner had encroached upon 0.02.00 hectares out of 0.27.50 hectares, in S.No. 132/5 Ozhugamangalam Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling for his objection in this regard. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner herein had submitted a detailed reply on 15.09.2024 putting forth all his objections to the notice under Section 7 of the Act. In spite of the objections given, the Tahsildar has now passed the impugned proceedings dated 21.10.2024 under Section 6 of the Act directing him to 2/6

evict from the subject property.

4. The very object of Section 7 of the Act is to extend an opportunity to the encroachers to give their objections with regard to the proposed eviction proceedings. It is only after such a notice under Section 7 of the Act is given, the respondents may be empowered to proceed under Section 6. However, while passing such order, there is a duty cast upon them to consider the explanation rendered by the encroachers to the notice given under Section 7.

5. A perusal of the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, dated 21.10.2024 reveals that, though the 2nd respondent seems to have received the explanation given by the petitioner to the notice under Section 7, the same has not been considered. We fail to understand as to how the respondents had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is an encroacher, more particularly, when he has raised objections to the proposed eviction proceedings.

3/6

6. In view of the same, the order impugned in the writ petition is deemed to be a non speaking order and hence, cannot be legally sustained. However, we are of the view that the respondents could be granted liberty to consider the petitioner's explanation dated 15.09.2024 and then take further course of action.

7. In the light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent herein for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall consider the petitioner's explanation dated 15.09.2024 and thereafter take further course of action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and pass a speaking order. Such an exercise shall be completed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. [M.S.R.,J] [A.D.M.C.,J] 08.11.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR 4/6

TO

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2. The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District..

5/6

M.S. RAMESH , J.

AND A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.26615 of 2024 Date : 08/11/2024 6/6