T.Balakumar Vs the District Collector

has been filed with a Removal of Encroachment (RoE) prayer qua 'R.S.No.110, Perode Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District' [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶27

Mr. S. Malarmannan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, submits that repeated representations to respondents as regards aforereferred RoE have not yielded results and that has necessitated the filing of the captioned WP.

¶28

Issue notice to respondents.

¶29

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government

¶30

Pleader, accepts notice for all four respondents and submits, on instructions, that assignment was made qua said land (assignment in

¶31

Page Nos.2/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P. No.25776 of 2025

¶34

favour of private individuals) but the same was cancelled for alleged violation of conditions but we express no view or opinion on cancellation of assignment.

¶35

Be that as it may, what is of relevance to the captioned WP is, learned State counsel submits that revenue classification of said land as of today is Government poramboke and proceedings for RoE under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is in the anvil and that the same would commence as expeditiously as the business of respondents would permit but in any event within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 13.08.2025.

¶36

In the light of the limited scope of the captioned WP, this Court is of the considered view that recording the stated position of the learned State counsel will suffice for giving a closure to the captioned WP.

¶37

However, before doing so, we also deem it appropriate to record that learned State counsel submits that some of the encroachers are eligible for alternative site and the same would be considered.

¶38

Page Nos.3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P. No.25776 of 2025

¶41

In this view of the matter, we also make it clear that any

¶42

person who is put on notice i.e., any noticee qua proceedings under said 1905 Act, which, according to learned State counsel, is in the anvil, will have all the questions and rights left open for responding when show caused. As all the rights and contentions of all possible noticees qua proceedings under said 1905 Act, which, according to learned State counsel, is in the anvil, are preserved, there is no impediment in taking up the captioned WP with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List, itself. We do so.

¶43