Disposed

L.Lourdusamy v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC30 Nov 2023WP(MD)/28315/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notice under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The court observed that if encroachment persists, the authority must follow Section 7 and Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, ensuring the petitioner an opportunity to file an explanation before demolition. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

L.Lourdusamy Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.24389 of 2023

L.Lourdusamy

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Tahsildar Vedasandur Taluk Vedasandur, Dindigul District

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer Vedasandur Panchayat Union Vedasandur, Dindigul District ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.887/2020/Aa6, dated 20.11.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶20

We have heard Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, has been issued. The petitioner is in possession of his patta land. The authority could not have exercised the jurisdiction in respect of the patta land, inter alia , ought not have issued the impugned notice.

¶22

3. We have also heard Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents.

¶23

4. If a notice under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 has been issued and the encroachment has not been removed, the authority has to adopt the procedures as contemplated under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶24

____________ Page 2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023

¶27

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the competent authority would issue notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶28

6. In the light of that, naturally, on the basis of the impugned notice, no demolition would take place. In case, the authority issues notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioner will have every opportunity to file an explanation along with all the relevant documents, which will be considered by the authority, under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

¶29

7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

[S.V.G., .C.J.] [L.V.G., J.] 30.11.2023

¶31

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

¶32

krk

¶33

____________ Page 3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023

¶36

To:

¶37

1.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶38

2.The Block Development Officer, Vedasandur Panchayat Union, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶39

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

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023

¶42

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

¶43

krk

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.28315 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.24389 of 2023

¶45

30.11.2023

¶46

____________ Page 5 of 5

¶47

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

L.Lourdusamy v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Lourdusamy v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Mahalinga Gandhi

Ramanathan Chettiar Vs Ganasambandam

Prithiviraj Vs Guru,S/O.Muniyasamy

L.Nagarajan Vs The Tahsildar

A.Jenin Vs The District Collector

G. Selestine, President Vs the State of Tamil Nadu