Disposed

P.Sonaimuthu v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Nov 2023WP(MD)/21063/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition seeking quashing of eviction notices issued by the Tahsildar and Executive Officer under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Court directed the Executive Officer to report the enclosure for proper legal procedure and communicate the report to the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

The notices issued by the Tahsildar and Executive Officer are maintained, but the Executive Officer is directed to communicate a report to the Tahsildar to follow procedure under the Tamil Nadu Land E

P.Sonaimuthu Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17311, 17312 and 17560 of 2017

¶9

P.Sonaimuthu ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Vedasandur,

¶13

Dindigul District.

¶14

3.The Executive Officer, Panchayat Office, Vedasanthur, Dindigul District.

¶15

4.Maruthai ...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by

¶17

1/5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017

¶20

the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.5130/2017/A4 dated 18.05.2007 and consequently the impugned notice issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3 of 2016 dated 07.06.2017 and consequently the impugned notice issued by the second respondent dated 11.08.2017 and consequently impugned notice issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3 of 2016 dated 09.11.2017 and quash the same as illegal, against law and non jurisdiction.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Anandan For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶24

The notices issued by the Tahsildar, Vedasanthur, Dindigul District in proceedings dated 18.05.2007 and 11.08.2017 and the consequential notices issued by the Executive Officer, Vedasandur, Dindigul District in proceedings dated 07.06.2017 and 09.11.2017 are sought to be quashed in the present Writ Petition.

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017

¶28

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the Executive Officer without jurisdiction, has issued eviction notice under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

¶29

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has made a submission that under Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the authority competent is empowered to evict the encroachers.

¶30

4.In any event the notice issued by the Executive Officer is to be construed as a report for the purpose of initiation of eviction proceedings and accordingly, the Executive Officer /3^rd respondent is directed to communicate the said report to the jurisdictional 1Tahsildar /2^nd respondent, who in turn shall issue notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the encroacher and thereafter, on receipt of objections / explanations from the encroacher, pass an order under Section 6 of the Act and thereafter, proceed with the removal of encroachment.

¶31

3/5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017

¶34

5.It is needless to state that the second respondent has to scrupulously follow the procedures as contemplated under the Act. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

6.With these observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

(S.M.S., J.) & (R.K.M., J.) 03.11.2023

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶38

¶39

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul.

¶40

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶41

4/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017

¶44

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶45

AND

¶46

R. KALAIMATHI, J.

¶47

¶48

3.The Executive Officer, Panchayat Office, Vedasanthur, Dindigul District.

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.21063 of 2017

¶50

03.11.2023

¶51

5/5

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Sonaimuthu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sonaimuthu v. the District Collector

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

Sivasankaran .B Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.S.Karikala Chozhan Vs the Chief Municipal

Kajamaideen .M Vs The Manager / Authorized Officer