S.B.Bowmesh Vs the Panchayat President

Abirami Nagar, Vaigai Nagar Priya Nagar-1 and Priya Nagar-2 Welfare Association (Reg. No.28/2007) Rep. by its President Plot No.57, Abirami Nagar Urapakkam Chennai 603 210

¶16

Page Nos.1/8

¶17

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

¶18

W.P. No. 25773 of 2025

¶19

6.

¶20

The Collector Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu 603 111 Respondents

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent, leading to the issuance of the Notice dated 07.07.2025 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 6^th respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 12.06.2025 filed by the petitioner on the file of the 6^th respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, within a time frame.

¶22

For petitioner Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa

¶23

For RR1 to 4 & 6 Mr. C. Kathiravan Special Govt. Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

[made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.]

¶26

The captioned Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 07.07.2025, issued by the Panchayat President/Executive Officer of Urappakkam Village, Vandalur Taluk, Chengalpattu – 603210 (first respondent herein), calling upon the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment in Survey No.76/40, said to be classified as wetland (nanjai) measuring 0.01.7 acres, situated in Urappakkam Panchayat.

¶27

Page Nos.2/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P. No. 25773 of 2025

¶30

The petitioner contends that by the impugned notice, he has

¶31

been threatened with demolition of the superstructure erected on the said land, scheduled to be carried out on 17.07.2025 at 11.00 a.m. This, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner further submits that a similar notice was earlier issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter “the LE Act”), followed by an order under Section 6 of the LE Act, against which an appeal has been filed and is currently pending before the sixth respondent.

¶32

Issue notice to the official respondents.

¶33

Mr. C. Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4 and 6, and upon instructions, submits that the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is in conformity with Section 131(2) of the Act.

¶34

Page Nos.3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P. No. 25773 of 2025

¶37

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 7 of the LE Act, followed by an order under Section 6 of the LE Act. It is also not in dispute that the said order was earlier challenged before this Court in W.P. No.4025 of 2025, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.02.2025 (in which one of us, M. Sundar, J., was a member), relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the LE Act.

¶38

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the sixth respondent on 12.06.2025, along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 92 days, and a request for interim stay under Section 10-B of the LE Act. While the said appeal and applications are pending, the impugned notice came to be issued by the first respondent.

¶39

Section 131(2) of the Act empowers the Executive Authority or Commissioner concerned to, suo motu or based on a report from the Village Administrative Officer, initiate proceedings to remove encroachments within such time as may be specified by the

¶40

Page Nos.4/8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P. No. 25773 of 2025

¶43

Government through a general or special order. If the encroachment is not removed within the stipulated time, officers of the Revenue Department are required to initiate proceedings under the LE Act.

¶44

In the present case, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice threatening demolition of the superstructure without taking recourse to the procedure under the LE Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the impugned notice is not in conformity with the procedure laid down under law.

¶45

Further, it is evident that a similar order under Section 6 of the LE Act has already been passed and is under challenge in a statutory appeal, which is pending consideration. In such circumstances, issuance of the impugned notice during the pendency of the appeal is not legally sustainable.

¶46

In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the impugned notice dated 07.07.2025 issued by the first respondent is liable to be and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the certiorari limb of the prayer is allowed.

¶47

Page Nos.5/8

¶48

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

¶49

W.P. No. 25773 of 2025

¶50

As regards the mandamus limb, the sixth respondent is

¶51

directed to consider the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the appeal dated 12.06.2025, and pass appropriate orders thereon within four (4) weeks from today, i.e., on or before 12.08.2025. In the event the delay is condoned, the sixth respondent shall consider and dispose of the petitioner’s request for interim stay of the order dated 03.01.2025, impugned in the appeal, within a further period of four (4) weeks therefrom, i.e., on or before 09.09.2025.

¶52

It is made clear that any coercive action, if initiated, shall be subject to the outcome of the applications for condonation of delay and interim stay under Section 10-B of the LE Act.

¶53

This Writ Petition stands disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.) 15.07.2025

¶55

cad

¶56

Index: Yes/No N.C. : Yes/No

¶57

Page Nos.6/8

¶58

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

¶59

W.P. No. 25773 of 2025