Dismissed

Ponnuchamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Mar 2023WP(MD)/6676/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging eviction notices issued by a Village Panchayat President. The Court held the President lacks the power to evict and directed the Revenue Department to consider the petitioners' application for patta.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Revenue Department to consider the petitioners' application for the grant of Patta.

Ponnuchamy Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.03.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6306, 6313, 6308, 6309, 6310, 6307 & 6311 of 2023

¶8

W.P.(MD) No.6676 of 2023:

¶9

Ponnuchamy ... Petitioner

¶10

-vs-

¶11

1.The District Collector

¶12

Office of the District Collector Virudhunagar District

¶13

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector Sivakasi

¶14

Virudhunagar District

¶15

3.The Tahsildar

¶16

Watrap Taluk Office Virudhunagar District

¶17

_____________ Page 1 of 8_

¶18

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶19

4.The Block Development Officer Village Panchayat Watrap Taluk Virudhunagar District

¶20

5.The President Khansabpuram Village Panchayat Watrap Taluk Virudhunagar District ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned unsigned notice of eviction passed by the fifth respondent vide his proceeding Nil, dated Nil and quash the same as illegal and for other reliefs, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R4 & R5

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶27

Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the action of the President of Khansabpuram Village Panchayat, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District, in issuing notices under Sections 131(2) and 222 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, threatening to evict the petitioners from the Government poromboke land, which is in their occupation.

¶28

2. Earlier in 2020, similar notices were issued by the President, which was subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD) No.18431 of 2020 etc. batch. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2022, directed the petitioners therein to file their objections to the proposed eviction and required the Authority to pass orders. Thereafter, the petitioners had made a request for issuance of patta for the lands, which are under their occupation, citing the fact that they live below the poverty line and they have been carrying on business in the said lands for a quite long time. It is thereafter, the impugned notices were issued requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted.

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 8_

¶30

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶31

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the President of Village Panchayat has no power to conduct enquiry regarding encroachment. Relying on the language of Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the President can only make a request to the encroachers to vacate and if they fail to vacate, the President has to necessarily address the revenue officials for removal of encroachments under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶32

4. Contending contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the impugned notices being only show cause notices, this Court may not entertain the writ petitions at this stage.

¶33

5. We do not think that we can throw out the writ petitions on this

¶34

ground.

¶35

6. Section 131 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 reads

¶36

as follows:

¶37

_____________ Page 4 of 8_

¶38

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶39

“It shall be the duty of the Village Administrative Officer of every revenue village to report on encroachments on properties vested in Village Panchayats or Panchayat Union Councils to the Executive Authority or the Commissioner concerned and to the officer of the Revenue Department, and it shall be the duty of the Executive Authority or the Commissioner concerned either suo motu or on obtaining a report from the Village Administrative Officer in this regard to institute proceedings under this Act and secure the removal of the encroachments within such time as may be specified by the Government by general or special order. If the removal of the encroachments has not been secured within the period specified in such order, the officers of the Revenue Department shall institute proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905) and secure such removal.”

¶40

7. A reading of the above provision would show that the power to evict is not vested with the Panchayat President. He can request the encroachers to vacate, by a General or Special order. If the encroachers fail to vacate, the Panchayat President can seek aid of the revenue officials to launch

¶41

Page 5 of 8

¶42

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶43

proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petitions with the direction to the Revenue Department to consider the application for grant of Patta made by the petitioners on 19.12.2022, reserving liberty to the President of Khansabpuram Village Panchayat to move the revenue authorities for eviction by following due process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners is required to forward the representation dated 19.12.2022 to the third respondent once again by registered post. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶44

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 28.03.2023

¶45

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

¶46

krk

¶47

To:

¶48

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

¶49

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶50

_____________ Page 6 of 8_

¶51

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶52

3.The Tahsildar, Watrap Taluk Office, Virudhunagar District.

¶53

4.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶54

5.The President, Khansabpuram Village Panchayat, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶55

Page 7 of 8

¶56

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023

¶57

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶58

krk

¶59

W.P.(MD) Nos.6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680 & 6681 of 2023 and

¶60

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6306, 6313, 6308, 6309, 6310, 6307 & 6311 of 2023

¶61

28.03.2023

¶62

_____________ Page 8 of 8_

Ponnuchamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnuchamy 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

R.Elavarasan, Vs Dr.S.Aneesh Sekhar, I.A.S.

The Commissioner of Land Administration Vs Xavier.a

Subramanian .v Vs The District Collector

Arjunan.M Vs The District collector

C. Karuppanan @ Karuppaiah Vs The District Collector

Palanivelammal Ramaiah Vs The Authorized Officer