2.Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order would submit that the petitioner and his brother Periya Kalimuthu have purchased a landed property in old S.No.90/B (New S.No.47/11) from one Pichaiammal and Ramalakshmi as per the sale deed dated 24.10.1969. After some time, alleging that the petitioner has encroached into the land in S.Nos.47/10C and 47/11D, the respondent issued notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as if the property in S.No.47/10C and 47/11D has been encroached to an extent of 19 Sq.mtr and 50 sq.mtr respectively by fixing stone pillars in Poosthithi Street and the petitioner was also called upon to submit his explanation. Immediately thereafter, a detailed representation was given on 31.07.2018, inter alia, objecting the issuance of the aforementioned notice that the property has been purchased from one Pitchaiammal and Ramalakshmi by registered sale deed and on the basis of the registered sale deed, he has laid stone pillars from preventing the anti social elements, who misused the petitioner's property. While so, the respondent ought not to have ordered for removal of the same within seven days by issuing the impugned notice. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that once the respondent has issued notice under Section 7 of the Act, on receipt of the explanation offered by the petitioner on 31.07.2018, they are bound to consider the explanation before passing an order for removal of the encroachment under Section 6 of the Act, which has not been done.
