Partly allowed

Ponraj v. the Executive Officer

Madras HC18 Aug 2020WP(MD)/7814/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging tenant notice issued under Land Encroachment Act against semi-permanent structure constructed by local body. Court held notice unsustainable as land vested with respondent, quashing proceedings and allowing remedy under Panchayats Act without disturbing possession.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 30.06.2020 under Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act set aside; liberty granted to respondent to invoke Section 131 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act within eight weeks; possession not

Ponraj Vs the Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7814 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.08.2020

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶4

W.P(MD)No.7814 of 2020 and

¶5

W.M.P.(MD)No.7289 of 2020

¶6

Ponraj ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Executive Officer, Nilakottai Town Panchayat, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.342/2020, dated 03.06.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent not to disturb the lawful possession and occupation of the shops 7 and 8 situated at Nilakottai Town Panchayat at Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Sureshkumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., ]

¶14

The petitioner claims that he is a licensee in respect of shop Nos.7 and 8 situated at Nilakottai Town Panchayat for the period of 2017-2020, on becoming a successful bidder and he was granted license for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020 on a monthly license fee of Rs.1,200/-. According to the petitioner, he is running a type writing centre as well as Xerox shop and it is housed in a semi permanent structure which itself was constructed by the respondent / local body.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the license period was also extended for another three https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023 vide proceedings of the

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)No.7814 of 2020

¶18

respondent dated 30.03.2020 with the enhanced license fee at the rate of Rs.1,380/- p.m. The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the shops in question have been constructed by the respondent / local body for which he has also been given license which expires only on 31.03.2023, all of a sudden, the respondent had invoked the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and issued the impugned notice and even for the sake of argument the said notice is sustainable, due process of law contemplated under the said Act have to be followed and hence, prayed for allowing this writ petition.

¶19

3.Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent / local body would submit that though the land in question vests with the local body, in the light of the fact that the superstructure, which is the subject matter of license in favour of the petitioner, found to be an encroachment, the provisions of Land Encroachment Act has been invoked erroneously and he would further plead that appropriate legal action under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, would be initiated and due process of law would be followed against the petitioner.

¶20

4.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

5.No doubt, the petitioner is carrying on business in the semi permanent structure put up by the local body itself and having license upto 31.03.2023. It is the submission of the respondent / local body that the construction of the semi permanent structure is an encroachment and therefore, they have taken steps to remove the said encroachment in public interest.

¶22

6.In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned notice issued under the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, on the face of it, is unsustainable for the reason that the land in question belongs to the respondent / local body and in such an event, the remedy open to the respondent, if any, is to invoke Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

¶23

7.In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 30.06.2020 is set aside and the respondent is granted liberty to invoke appropriate provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and Rules framed thereunder against the petitioner and also by adhering to the principles of natural justice and complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till the

¶24

2/3

¶25

W.P(MD)No.7814 of 2020

¶26

culmination of the said proceedings, the possession of the petitioner in respect of the shops in question need not be interfered with. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Deputy Registrar (LA&M)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

rj2

¶31

Note:- In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

The Executive Officer, Nilakottai Town Panchayat, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

¶34

W.P(MD)No.7814 of 2020 18.08.2020

¶35

KM (27.08.2020) 3P 2C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

3/3

Ponraj v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponraj v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samraj Vs a. A.K. Mani

K.Murugesan Vs the Secretary to Government

Tamilnadu Illakuraka and Kanaraga Vakana Payirichi Palli Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Subburaman Vs the Commissioner

The Director of Elementary Vs the Correspondent

S.Veraramu Vs The District Collector