Dismissed

M.Selvapriya v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Dec 2024WP/36087/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a notice fixing a date for removal of encroachment. The court held that since an appeal was pending under the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905, the petition was an attempt to abuse legal process.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as an abuse of process due to pending statutory appeal; subsequent writ miscellaneous petition perished.

M.Selvapriya Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.12.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶9

¶10

W.M.P No.38986 of 2024

¶11

¶12

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶13

M.Selvapriya W/o.Muthukumar .. Petitioner

¶14

¶15

The District Collector

¶16

Cuddalore District Cuddalore

¶17

The Tahsildar

¶18

Chettithangal Village Kattumannarkoil Taluk Cuddalore District

¶19

The Village Administrative Officer

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 15

¶21

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶22

Kattumannarkoil Taluk

¶23

Cuddalore District - 608 304

¶24

4. B.Ramesh

¶25

S/o.Balakrishnan .. Respondents

¶26

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 15.11.2024 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to measure the land in Survey No.171/2A.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anantharangan For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Arasakumar Govt. Advocate for R1 to R3

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

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

¶30

Captioned writ petition has been filed assailing a communication

¶31

dated 15.11.2024 bearing reference e/f/m1-1069-202 4 from R2

¶32

[Tahsildar, Chettithangal Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore

¶33

Distric t] {hereinafter 'impugned proceedings' for the sake of convenience

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 15

¶35

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶36

and clarity}.

¶37

2. A scanned reproduction of the impugned proceedings of R2 is as

¶38

follows:

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 15

¶40

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶41

3. A careful perusal of the impugned proceedings will bring to light

¶42

that Revenue Department of State has initiated proceedings under 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}, show-caused writ petitioner under Section 7 of said 1905 Act vide notice dated 25.09.2024 and after writ petitioner's response, has made an order dated 28.10.2024 under Section 6 of said 1905 Act. Challenging this 28.10.2024 order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act, writ petitioner filed W.P.No.33929 of 2024 along with W.M.P.No.36753 of 2024 thereat but the same was withdrawn on 13.11.2024 and the order is as follows:

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 15

¶44

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 15

¶46

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 15

¶48

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 15

¶50

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 15

¶52

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶53

4. Post withdrawal of the earlier writ petition on 13.11.2024,

¶54

impugned proceedings has been issued by R2 fixing the date for removal

¶55

of encroachment. This is clear from the impugned proceedings which has been scanned and reproduced supra. Assailing the impugned proceedings, the second writ petition has been filed.

¶56

5. This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self

¶57

contained Code. The reason inter-alia is that there is a provision to have

¶58

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

¶59

a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A

¶60

[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

¶61

every sense of the expression.

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 15

¶63

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 15

¶65

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶66

6. Today, in the Admission Board hearing, Mr.G.Anantharangan,

¶67

learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that the writ

¶68

petitioner has now filed an appeal under Section 10 of said 1905 Act. To be noted, the appeal lies to R1 [District Collector, Cuddalore District]

¶69

and we are informed that the appeal is dated 23.11.2024.

¶70

7. Even in the earlier withdrawal, it was made clear that the rights

¶71

of the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 10 of said 1905

¶72

Act are preserved. This is set out in the order which has been scanned

¶73

and reproduced supra. Therefore, there is absolutely no need or necessity

¶74

to file the captioned writ petition and it is clearly an attempt to abuse due

¶75

process of law. Intriguingly, though there is a passing reference about

¶76

the earlier writ petition and withdrawal of the same in page 5 of the support affidavit, copy of the order has not been enclosed in the typed-set of papers. To be noted, the official website of the Madras High Court

¶77

clearly shows that the earlier order dated 13.11.2024 has been duly

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 15

¶79

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶80

uploaded on 18.11.2024 itself. Though the captioned writ petition has been filed on 19.11.2024, the copy of the order of withdrawal of earlier

¶81

writ petition has not been enclosed in the typed-set of papers. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand as to what prevented the writ petitioner from enclosing the copy of the order in the earlier writ petition. The uploaded orders, as uploaded in the official website, are both watermarked and QR coded as regards authenticity is concerned.

¶82

8. We are of the considered view that this is a fit case for imposing

¶83

costs. This Court is also of the view that such practice is undesirable and

¶84

the same deserves to be deprecated. We do so.

¶85

9. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Mr.G.Anantharangan,

¶86

learned counsel on record for writ petitioner apologized profusely and

¶87

pleaded with this Court to not to impose costs. Considering the persuasive request to not to impose costs and profuse unconditional

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 15

¶89

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶90

apology tendered by learned counsel for writ petitioner, we refrain from imposing costs in this case but we make it clear that in future i.e., in the days to come, when similar or same situations arise, we will be constrained to impose costs nay heavy costs.

¶91

10. R2 sending a communication fixing a date for removal of encroachment cannot be found fault with and therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned proceedings. After all, R2 has communicated

¶92

to the writ petitioner the date fixed for removal of encroachment so that the writ petitioner can make necessary arrangements, if so desired and if so advised. This impugned proceedings of R2 requires to be sustained and held to be the correct approach rather than interfering with the same in exercise of our judicial powers. To put it otherwise, R2 has adopted the correct procedure in issuing the impugned proceedings.

¶93

Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned writ petition fails to pass muster in

¶94

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 15

¶95

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶96

the Admission Board. Captioned writ petition is dismissed.

¶97

Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petition perishes with the

¶98

same and the same is also dismissed. As already to alluded to supra, we

¶99

refrain from imposing costs as a one off of case.

¶100

[M.S., J] [K.R.S., J] 05.12.2024

¶101

gpa

¶102

¶103

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore

¶104

The Tahsildar Chettithangal Village Kattumannarkoil Taluk Cuddalore District

¶105

The Village Administrative Officer Kattumannarkoil Taluk Cuddalore District - 608 304

¶106

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 14 of 15

¶107

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶108

M.SUNDAR,J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶109

gpa

¶110

W.P.No.36087 of 2024

¶111

05.12.2024

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 15

M.Selvapriya v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Selvapriya 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

G.Ravichandran Vs The Collector

M/s.Lords Park Vs The State of TamilNadu

R.Rajamani Vs the District Collector

C.Nallaiyan Vs the Secretary to Government

Ganesh Vs the District Collector

C.Arul Vs the District Collector