Disposed¶56

Peruma v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Jan 2025WP/1805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905; Section 6 notice quashed/set aside; Section 7 show cause notice service and affixture; Madras High Court writ petition 1805 of 2025 (27.01.2025); Tahsildar Krishnagiri Taluk; S.No.34/8 Kondapalli Village; encroachment notice set aside for want of proof of due service of SCN; fresh orders afresh on merits; response time till 10.02.2025; no costs; W.M.P.No.2053 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Section 6 notice dated 24.12.2024 set aside solely for want of demonstrated due service of the Section 7 notice; petitioner permitted to respond on or before 10.02.2025 (reckoning date 27.01.2025); R3 to pass fresh orders on merits in accordance with law; captioned WP disposed of, connected W.M.P.No.2053 of 2025 disposed of as closed, no order as to costs. ¶56

Peruma Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 24.12.2024 issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 can stand when it was not preceded by due service of a Section 7 show cause notice on the writ petitioner.

¶28

Court's answer

The impugned notice dated 24.12.2024 issued by R3 under Section 6 of the 1905 Act is set aside.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice is set aside on the sole ground that learned State Counsel was unable to demonstrate that, prior to the impugned notice, notice under Section 7 of the 1905 Act was duly served on the writ petitioner in a manner known to law.

¶46

Key takeaways

There is no document to demonstrate that there is affixture of the Section 7 notice, and R3 in written instructions to learned State Counsel has not averred that the Section 7 notice has been affixed (sentence runs across paragraphs 40-42).ratio¶40
The Court is not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter; the setting aside is confined to the service-of-Section-7-notice ground.ratio¶47
Since petitioner's counsel was favoured with a copy of the Section 7 notice on the day of the order, the reckoning date is taken as 27.01.2025 and the writ petitioner may send a response, if so advised and desired, within a fortnight, i.e., on or before 10.02.2025.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Sundar & K. Rajasekar, JJ.), W.P.No.1805 of 2025, decided 27.01.2025 - Peruma W/o Late Govindasamy v. District Collector, Krishnagiri and others. A notice/order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Chennai III Act 1905), signed on 24.12.2024 by the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk, concerning S.No.34/8, Kondapalli Village, was challenged on the ground that it was not preceded by a Section 7 show cause notice. The State contended the Section 7 notice was issued and affixed after the petitioner refused to receive it, but the Court found no document demonstrating affixture and noted that R3's written instructions did not aver affixture. The impugned notice was set aside on the sole ground that due service of the Section 7 notice in a manner known to law could not be demonstrated, with no view expressed on merits; the reckoning date was fixed as 27.01.2025, the petitioner was allowed to respond on or before 10.02.2025, and R3 was directed to pass orders afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. Captioned WP disposed of; connected W.M.P.No.2053 of 2025 closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.1805 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.No.1805 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.2053 of 2025

¶8

Peruma W/o.Late Govindasamy

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o. The District Collector Krishnagiri.

¶13

The Tahsildar Krishnagiri Taluk Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer :

¶15

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the notice

¶16

Page Nos.1/7

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.1805 of 2025

¶19

issued under Section 6 of Chennai III Act 1905 (The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905) signed on 24.12.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} has been filed assailing a 'notice / order signed by R3 dated 24.12.2024' {hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}. To be noted, impugned notice has been issued under Section 6 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}. Impugned notice pertains to 'land comprised in S.No.34/8 in Kondapalli Village, Alappatti Sub-Taluk, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District' {hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}.

¶24

Page Nos.2/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.1805 of 2025

¶27

2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that impugned notice

¶28

was not preceded by 'Show Cause Notice' {'SCN'} under Section 7 of said 1905 Act.

¶29

3. Issue notice to respondents.

¶30

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

¶31

for respondents and submits, on instructions that Section 7 notice was in fact issued. Learned State Counsel submits that noticee / writ petitioner refused to receive Section 7 notice and therefore, the same was affixed. A copy of Section 7 notice said to have been affixed is placed before this Court. A

¶32

scanned reproduction of section 7 notice as placed before us is as follows:

¶33

Page Nos.3/7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.1805 of 2025

¶36

Page Nos.4/7

¶37

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

¶38

affixture

¶39

W.P.No.1805 of 2025

¶40

5. To be noted, there is no document to demonstrate that there is

¶41

affixture . It is to be noted that R3 in written instructions to learned State

¶42

Counsel has not averred that Section 7 notice has been affixed.

¶43

6. Though learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that he is concerned only with S.No.34/6 and the impugned notice has been issued to writ petitioner with regard to S.No.34/8, we deem it appropriate to make the following order:

¶44

(i) Impugned notice dated 24.12.2024 is set aside;

¶45

(ii) Impugned notice is set aside on the sole ground that

¶46

learned State Counsel is unable to demonstrate that prior to impugned notice, notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act was duly served on the writ petitioner in a manner known to law;

¶47

(iii) The above means that we are not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter;

¶48

(iv) Today, learned counsel for writ petitioner has been favoured with a copy of Section 7 notice. Therefore, we would

¶49

take the reckoning date as 27.01.2025 and writ petitioner shall

¶50

send response, if any, if so advised and if so desired within a

¶51

Page Nos.5/7

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.1805 of 2025

¶54

fortnight from today i.e., on or before 10.02.2025;

¶55

(v) Thereafter, R3 shall pass orders afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶56

Captioned WP disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, Writ Miscellaneous Petition thereat is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 27.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk To

¶58