The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act against the petitioner for occupying government poramboke land. The court held that notice under the Act is sufficient and rejected the claim to quash it.
Writ petition dismissed and the impugned notice dated 11.07.2002 was not quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.30262 of 2002
V.Krishnan … Petitioner
Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Dharmapuri – 636 701. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The District Collector, Dharmapuri- 636 701. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.K.aNo.8810/2002 C3, dated 11.07.2002 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent not to evict the petitioner in respect of the property of an extent of 0.28.5 hectares in Survey No.126 in Vellagoundanpalayam, Dharmapuri Taluk & District, without following the procedure contemplated under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act.
For Respondents : Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, Government Advocate
ORDER
The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.K.aNo.8810/2002 C3, dated 11.07.2002, quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent not to evict the petitioner in respect of the property of an extent of 0.28.5 hectares in Survey No.126 in Vellagoundanpalayam, Dharmapuri Taluk & District, without following the procedure contemplated under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Encroachment Act.
2.No one is appearing for the petitioner, when the case is called today. Since the Writ Petition is of the year 2002 and has been pending for more than 15 years, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition on merits.
3.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
4.The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the respondent No.1, vide his proceedings in Na.K.aNo.8810 /2002 C3, dated 11.07.2002. According to the said notice, the land in Survey No.126 to the extent of 0.28.5 hectares at Vellagoundanpalayam, Dharmapuri Taluk & District, is a Government poramboke land where the petitioner had encroached upon 0.04.0 hectares of land and had been using the same.
5.Since the said poramboke land to the entire extent of 0.28.5 hectares was earmarked for a specific purpose for Washermen, the respondent No.1 had issued the impugned notice dated 11.07.2002 to remove the encroachment of the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of the said notice. Instead of acting upon the said notice, he has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition, challenging the said notice dated 11.07.2002.
6.It is settled proposition of law that the land encroachers cannot have any vested right and if at all, they have been in occupation of the Government land, the provision of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, can very well be invoked against such encroachers. The only requirement is to give notice under the provisions of the said Act and thereafter, it is open to the Revenue Authorities to evict such encroachers. Here, in the case in hand, such notice has been issued by the respondent No.1/Tahsildar, giving one week time to the petitioner to evict from the Government Land, however, the petitioner has challenged the same in this Writ Petition.
7.If at all, the petitioner already replied to the impugned notice dated 11.07.2002, based on such reply, order could have been passed by this time. If any reply has not been given and the petitioner has not evicted from the said land, it is open to the respondent No.1 to take action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, for eviction of the petitioner.
8.In view of this position, the notice dated 11.07.2002, which is impugned herein, cannot be challenged as the said impugned notice has been issued only under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, this Court reject the claim of the petitioner seeking to quash the said notice dated 11.07.2002.
In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
mps
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri- 636 701.
+1cc to Government Pleader in sr.no.86363
W.P.No.30262 of 2002
gj(co)
nr 04/01/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court can quash the eviction notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act given the prolonged pendency of the petition.
Whether a public servant can be held liable in a writ petition for issuing an eviction notice where the impugned act was done in accordance with the law.
Whether the petitioner has acquired any vested right over the government land entitling him to challenge the notice.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
V. Krishnan
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Dharmapuri
The State of Tamil Nadu
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R. Suresh Kumar
Parties & counsel
