Disposed

M.Basappa v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Nov 2024WP/34162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus to remove encroachments on government Oni Poramboke land. State counsel stated that proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 had been initiated against the alleged encroachers, with Section 7 notice and Section 6 order passed. Holding the 1905 Act a self-contained Code with appeal and revision remedies, the Division Bench disposed of the petition a

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Basappa Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶7

M.Basappa S/o.Munisamy

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶11

The Sub-Collector Hosur Town, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

The Tahsildar Shoolagiri Taluk Office Krishnagiri District.

¶13

The Block Development Officer Shoolagiri Union Krishnagiri District.

¶14

The President A-Chettipallai Panchayat Shoolagiri Union, Krishnagiri District.

¶15

Page Nos.1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶18

6. Mrs.Jayamma W/o.Muniappa

¶19

M.Narayanappa S/o.Munisamy ... Respondents

¶20

Prayer :

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments on Survey No.37/1 in Government Oni Poramboke lands at Alasadhanapalli Village, A-Chettipalli, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District based on the representation dated 23.09.2024 as well as the notice issued by 3rd respondent under Section 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 22.07.2024 within stipulated period.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Loganathan For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader for R4 and R5

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

Captioned 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has

¶26

been filed with a mandamus prayer for removal of encroachment qua 'Survey No.37/1 in Government Oni Poramboke lands at Alasadhanapalli

¶27

Page Nos.2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶30

Village, A-Chettipalli, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District' {hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity}.

¶31

Issue notice to official respondents i.e., R1 to R5.

¶32

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice

¶33

for R1 to R3 and Mr.G.Velu, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R4 and R5.

¶34

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, on instructions

¶35

submits that proceedings under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} has already been initiated against private respondents (R6 and R7). Learned State Counsel submits that Section 7 notice has been issued and Section 6 order has also been passed. Learned State Counsel also submits that private respondents (alleged encroachers) are being given opportunity as per said 1905 Act.

¶36

This Court has repeatedly held that 'the Tamil Nadu Land

¶37

Page Nos.3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶40

Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' which is being referred to as 'said 1905 Act' is a self contained Code. The reason inter-alia is that there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under section 7 followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order under section 6 is appealable under section 10 [District Collector is the appellate authority] and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A [Section 10-A(3) to be precise] of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. Therefore, said 1905 Act is a self contained Code in every sense of the expression.

¶41

Therefore, recording the stated position of learned State Counsel, captioned WP is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 25.11.2024

¶43

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order

¶44

mk To

¶45

Page Nos.4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶48

The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶49

The Sub-Collector Hosur Town, Krishnagiri District.

¶50

The Tahsildar Shoolagiri Taluk Office Krishnagiri District.

¶51

The Block Development Officer Shoolagiri Union Krishnagiri District.

¶52

The President A-Chettipallai Panchayat Shoolagiri Union, Krishnagiri District.

¶53

Page Nos.5/6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶56

M.SUNDAR, J.,

¶57

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶58

¶59

W.P.No.34162 of 2024

¶60

25.11.2024

¶61

Page Nos.6/6

¶62

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

M.Basappa v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Basappa v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramasamy Vs The Tahsildar

V.Senthil Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Corporation

Regina Selvam Vs the Secretary to Government

T.Senbagam Vs the Commissioner

R.Palanisamy Vs the District Collector

M.Manoharan Vs the District Collector