Disposed

Ganapathy v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Dec 2024WP/37565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a letter under Section 236 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 regarding alleged encroachment. The Court held that the letter must be treated as a Show Cause Notice, allowing the petitioner's representation to be considered. If unsatisfied, proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 may commence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter sustained as a Show Cause Notice; petitioner's representation considered.

Ganapathy Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.P.No.37565 of 2024 and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.40605 and 40606 of 2024

Ganapathy

Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector Salem District Collectorate Salem District - 1

¶13

The Tahsildhar Mettur Tashildhar Office Mettur Taluk Salem District.

¶14

The Revenue Inspector Office of the Revenue Inspector Pottaneri Revenue Village Mettur Taluk Salem District

¶15

Page Nos.1/12

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶18

The Block Development Officer Mecheri Panchayat Union Koonandiyur Village Mettur Taluk Salem District Respondents

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the impugned letter in Letter No.24/2024 dated 18.10.2024 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same.

¶20

For petitioner Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan For respondents Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

¶23

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

¶24

has been filed assailing a 'letter dated 18.10.2024 bearing Letter No.24/2024 made by R4 [Block Development Officer]' {hereinafter 'impugned letter' for the sake of brevity}.

¶25

Impugned letter pertains to 'land comprised in S.Nos.93, 94 and

¶26

95 in Koonandiyur Village, Mecheri Panchayat Union, Salem District' {hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity}.

¶27

Page Nos.2/12

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶30

One Mr.M.Viswanathan filed a writ petition in W.P.No.23037

¶31

of 2023 in this Court and another Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the same by an order dated 23.02.2024. A scanned reproduction of the order

¶32

dated 23.02.2024 in W.P.No.23037 of 2023 is as follows:

¶33

Page Nos.3/12

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶36

Page Nos.4/12

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶39

A scanned reproduction of impugned letter is as follows:

¶40

Page Nos.5/12

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶43

Page Nos.6/12

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶46

Mr. K.Vasanthanayagan, learned counsel on record for the writ

¶47

petitioner submits that writ petitioner was not a party to earlier writ petition namely, W.P.No.23037 of 2023 and writ petitioner has not been given any opportunity. Learned counsel also points out that writ petitioner has sent a detailed representation dated 23.10.2024. A scanned reproduction of the representation dated 23.10.2024 is as follows:

¶48

Page Nos.7/12

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶51

Issue notice to respondents.

¶52

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

¶53

notice for respondents.

¶54

Page Nos.8/12

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶57

Learned State counsel submits that the impugned letter has

¶58

been issued by R4 in strict compliance with earlier judicial order being order dated 23.02.2024 made in W.P.No.23037 of 2023.

¶59

We carefully considered the submissions made on both sides.

¶60

Considering the limited scope of the captioned WP, main WP

¶61

was taken up in the Admission Board itself with the consent of both sides.

¶62

The earlier judicial order directs respondents to take necessary steps 'in accordance with law'. Impugned letter refers to Section 236 of 'the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} which deals with public roads, markets, wells, tanks etc. to be open to all. As regards said Act, 'Executive Authority' has been defined in sub-section 11 of Section 2 of said Act and Executive Authority is a person notified as such by the Government under Section 83 of said Act. In the case on hand,

¶63

Page Nos.9/12

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶66

recorded.

¶67

we are informed that R4 is the Executive Authority. This submission is recorded.

¶68

This means that the impugned letter is essentially a letter under Section 236 read with Section 131 of said Act more particularly Section 131(2) of said Act. Therefore, Section 131 of said Act provides for prohibition against obstructions in or over public roads etc. In the impugned letter, the aforementioned survey numbers have been referred to as 'Paathai' (ghij). Therefore, it is only appropriate that the writ petitioner is given an opportunity to respond. In any event, writ petitioner has already sent a representation dated 23.10.2024 after the impugned letter. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to make the following order:

¶69

(a) Impugned letter being letter dated 18.10.2024 bearing Letter No.24/2024 made by R4 [Block Development Officer] is sustained. In other words, certiorari prayer is not acceded to but with a rider that the impugned letter shall be treated as a 'Show Cause Notice' {'SCN'} and the representation sent by writ petitioner being representation dated 23.10.2024 shall be treated as writ petitioner's response;

¶70

Page Nos.10/12

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶73

(b) The Executive Authority (R4) shall consider the representation dated 23.10.2024. Thereafter, if the Executive Authority is not satisfied with the representation, the Executive Authority himself or through the Village Administrative Officer shall report the matter to Village Panchayat or Panchayat Union Council and proceedings under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} shall be commenced. However, if the Executive Authority is satisfied with the representation, that will be the end of the matter;

¶74

(c) We make it clear that if proceedings under said 1905 Act are commenced, all rights and contentions of the writ petitioner, including the contentions raised in the captioned WP are left open for being canvassed in those proceedings.

¶75

Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently,

¶76

connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions thereat are disposed of as closed.

¶77

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No cad

¶79

Page Nos.11/12

¶80

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

¶81

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

¶82

M.SUNDAR, J.

¶83

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶84

cad

¶85

¶86

The District Collector Salem District Collectorate Salem District-01

¶87

The Tashildhar Mettur Tashildhar Office Mettur Taluk Salem District

¶88

The Revenue Inspector Office of the Revenue Inspector Pottaneri Revenue Village Mettur Taluk Salem District

¶89

The Block Development Officer Mecheri Panchayat Union Koonandiyur Village Mettur Taluk Salem District

W.P.No.37565 of 2024

19.12.2024

Page Nos.12/12

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

Ganapathy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathy 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

A.Rukmani Vs the District Collector

V.Chandran Vs the District Collector

Dhanasekar Vs the District Collector

Ganapathy Vs the District Collector

Prema Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector

Rajendiran Vs the District Collector