This judgment disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The court directed the revenue authorities to conduct an enquiry and cited the petitioner's son as the correct addressee.
The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders within six weeks after conducting an enquiry.
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.
W.P(MD)No.14647 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.10.2020 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.14647 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)No.12297 of 2020
A.Perumal Naicker
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2.The Thasildar, Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to impugned order dated 17.09.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthalraj
For Respondents : Mr.Muthugeethaiyan, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. ]
The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Tahsildar, Tutitcorin Taluk, Tuticorin / 2nd respondent under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act by contending that the land in their possession is classified as Natham land, for which, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction for initiating such proceedings.
2.Heard Mr.S.Muthalraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Muthugeethiyan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the sale deed, dated 10.05.2017 to show that the petitioner's son has purchased the property in Survey No.150/1 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,04,332/- and he further submitted that the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has got no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, which has been
1/2
W.P(MD)No.14647 of 2020
wrongly issued to the petitioner, instead of his son.
4.Under such circumstances, this Court issues the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall give his explanation to the impugned notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) On receipt of such an explanation from the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks therefrom, by conducting an enquiry after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and
(iii) Till such an order is passed and served upon the petitioner by the second respondent, there shall not be any coercive action.
5.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CS I)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
dsk To
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2.The Thasildar, Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin.
+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-20805[F] dated 02/11/2020 )
W.P(MD)No.14647 of 2020 28.10.2020
KMV(CO) KK(26.11.2020) 2P 4C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Authorities have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act on land classified as Natham land.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.Perumal Naicker
The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin
The Thasildar, Tuticorin Taluk, Tuticorin
N.Kirubakaran
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
