Ambedkar Natrajan Vs the District Collector

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment on the pond (kuttai, viz ., Vallimedu Kulam) comprised in Survey No.375/8 measuring an extent of 0.22.5 hectare i.e., 0.55 cents situate at Keizhmudalambedu Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District, made by respondents 6 and 7.

¶22

For petitioner Mr. S. Udhayakumar for Mr. D. Gopinathan

¶23

For RR 1 2 & 4 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Addl. Govt. Pleader

¶24

For RR 3 and 5 Mr. R. Neethiperumal Government Advocate

¶25

ORDER

¶26

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶27

Captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity]

¶28

has been filed with a Removal of Encroachment (RoE) prayer qua 'S.No.375/8 in No.79, Keezhmudhalambedu-II Panchayat, Gummidipoondi Panchayat Union, Thiruvallur District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶29

Learned counsel for writ petitioner contends that the said property is a pond.

¶30

Page Nos.2/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P. No.25968 of 2025

¶33

Repeated requests for RoE qua official respondents has not

¶34

yielded results and that has necessitated the filing of the captioned WP is learned counsel's say.

¶35

Issue notice to official respondents.

¶36

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government

¶37

Pleader, accepts notice for RR 1,2 and 4 and Mr. R. Neethiperumal, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for RR 3 and 5.

¶38

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel for RR 1,2 and 4 submits, on instructions that RoE action has already been initiated qua 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act (Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] by issuing a notice under Section 7 dated 02.07.2025 (To be noted, noticee is R6Mohanasundaram, who is the spouse of R7-Bhuvaneshwari, who (RR 6 and 7) are alleged encroachers even according to writ petitioner) and R6 has also responded to the Section 7 notice and the same is under active consideration.

¶39

Page Nos.3/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P. No.25968 of 2025

¶42

Before we write the operative portion of this order, it is deemed appropriate to record the obtaining factual position that R7 has filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate at Gummidipoondi [hereinafter 'said suit' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and said suit is pending. A copy of the plaint has been placed before this Court as part of the typed set of papers. This Court finds that said suit has been filed with bare injunction prayers and the suit property has been described in two schedules, viz ., 'A' & 'B' schedules. This Court also finds that said property has been shown as 'B' schedule property.

¶43

Be that as it may, a suit for bare injunction in cases of this nature is obviously bare injunction qua dispossession dehors due process of law irrespective of whether the same is spelt out/articulated in the prayer or not. Furthermore, Section 14 of said 1905 Act is clearly a bar to assail notices under said 1905 Act and therefore, aforefererred notice under Section 7 referred to by the learned State counsel cannot be assailed in the suit. It is also noticed that the writ petitioner has filed an implead petition vide I.A.No.4 of 2024 in the

¶44

Page Nos.4/8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P. No.25968 of 2025

¶47

said suit. Consideration/trial of the suit by the Trial Court will be subject to Section 14 of said 1905 Act. All other questions in the suit are left open.

¶48

Now that RoE proceedings have been commenced under said 1905 Act as against R6, let the same proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law. In this regard, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of RR 6 and 7 (private respondents), writ petitioner and any other person concerned with the matter/said property are preserved when proceedings under said 1905 Act continue on their own merits and in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we dispense with notice to RR 6 and 7 and take up the captioned WP in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List, with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel for RR 1 to 5.

¶49

Though obvious, it is made clear that this order does not, in any manner, impact the rights of private respondents (RR 6 and 7) either in the suit, or in the proceedings under said 1905 Act, which, we are informed, has commenced.

¶50

Page Nos.5/8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P. No.25968 of 2025

¶53

In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court is of the

¶54

considered view that it will suffice to record the stated position of the learned State counsel to give a closure to the captioned WP. We do so.

¶55

Captioned WP is disposed of as closed recording the stated position of the learned State counsel, albeit with preservation of rights as regards which there is allusion in paragraphs 9 and 10 supra . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 17.07.2025

¶57

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

¶58

Page Nos.6/8

¶59

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

¶60

W.P. No.25968 of 2025

¶61

To