Disposed¶46

R.Sundararaji v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Sept 2025WP/33780/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus writ petition; kalam poramboke land S.F.No.463 Brammapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore; encroachment/cement road by fourth respondent P.Ilayaraja; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 Sections 6, 7, 10-B, 11(1); Section 7 notice 12.05.2025; Section 6 order 02.09.2025 by Tahsildar; appeal to District Collector within 30 days; proceedings to be carried to logical end; R4 rights preserved; disposed, no costs; Madras High Court; M. Sundar J. with Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus in the terms prayed for; writ petition disposed with the observation that the pending encroachment removal proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 must be carried to their logical end on merits and in accordance with law; R4's rights and contentions preserved; no order as to costs. ¶46

R.Sundararaji Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 3 to remove the cement/concrete road allegedly laid by R4 on S.F.No.463, Brammapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District (classified as 'kalam poramboke' public land), and restore the land to the petitioner village panchayat. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

This order does not impact the rights of R4 in any manner; the rights and contentions of R4 to pursue remedies inter alia under the 1905 Act stand preserved, which permitted dispensing with notice to R4 and taking up the writ petition with the consent of counsel.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The encroachment removal proceedings kickstarted under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 shall be carried to their logical end on their own merits and in accordance with law, and this suffices to give closure to the writ petition.

¶45

Key takeaways

The captioned writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench, order by M. Sundar J.), W.P.No.33780 of 2025, decided 09.09.2025. Vice President of Brammapuram Village Panchayat sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing officials to remove a concrete road allegedly laid by private respondent P.Ilayaraja on S.F.No.463, classified as 'kalam poramboke' public land, and restore it to the panchayat. State counsel recorded that RoE proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were already underway against R4: a Section 7 notice dated 12.05.2025 by the Revenue Inspector (unanswered), followed by a Section 6 order dated 02.09.2025 by the Tahsildar, despatched the same day. The Court disposed of the petition holding that the statutory proceedings must be carried to their logical end on their own merits and in accordance with law; R4 has thirty days under Section 11(1) to appeal to the District Collector, with interim stay available under Section 10-B. R4's rights and contentions were expressly preserved, notice to R4 was dispensed with by consent, and no costs were imposed.

¶1

W.P.No.33780 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.33780 of 2025

¶7

R.Sundararaji, Vice President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Vellore District – 632 014.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶11

2.The Thasildhar, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer (VP), Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi & Post, Vellore District.

¶13

4.P.Ilayaraja

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove unauthorised cement road laid in S.F.No.463 of Page Nos.1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.33780 of 2025

¶18

Brammapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District and restore the said land in favour of the petitioner village panchayat.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Jayachandran, Government Advocate for R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

Captioned 'Writ Petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a RoE (Removal of Encroachment) prayer.

¶23

Subject matter of captioned WP is a 'land comprised in S.F.No.463 in Brammapuram Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District'

¶24

(hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶25

Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner

¶26

submits that said land has been classified as 'kalam poramboke' in revenue records, it is therefore public land but private respondent (R4) has laid a concrete road for transporting sand.

¶27

Page Nos.2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.33780 of 2025

¶30

Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that repeated requests to official respondents, have not yielded results (to the knowledge of writ petitioner) and that has necessitated the captioned WP.

¶31

Issue notice to official respondents.

¶32

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for R1 and R2 and Mr.S.Jayachandran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R3.

¶33

Learned State counsel submits on instructions that RoE proceedings qua said land has already been commenced under 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}. Learned State counsel submits that a notice by the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector being notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act (dated 12.05.2025) was issued to R4, R4 did not respond and now, an order under Section 6 of

¶34

said 1905 Act being an order dated 02.09.2025 has been made by R2 (Tahsildar, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District). This submission of learned

¶35

Page Nos.3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.33780 of 2025

¶38

State counsel is recorded.

¶39

8. The above means that proceedings that have been kickstarted under said 1905 Act, now have to be carried to its logical end. Learned State counsel submits that Section 6 order made by R2 has been despatched to R4 on 02.09.2025. In the light of sub-section (1) of Section 11, R4 has thirty days time to prefer a statutory appeal against Section 6 order and this statutory appeal now will lie to R1 (District Collector, Vellore). There is also provision to seek interim stay vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. This also means that State will have to wait for thirty days from the date of service of 02.09.2025 Section 6 order on R4.

¶40

9. Thereafter, law will take its course depending on whether R4 prefers an appeal or not. Either way, the matter has to be carried to its logical end on its own merits and in accordance with law. In view of this observation, we make it clear that this order does not impact the rights of R4 in any manner. On the contrary, we make it clear that rights and contentions of R4 to pursue the remedies inter alia under said 1905 Act will stand preserved. Therefore, there is no impediment in dispensing with notice to R4 and taking up the captioned WP in the

¶41

Page Nos.4/7

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.33780 of 2025

¶44

Admission Board with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel. We do so.

¶45

10. We deem it appropriate to write that the proceedings kickstarted under said 1905 Act shall be carried to its logical end on its own merits and in accordance with law as already alluded to supra and this will suffice to give a closure to the captioned WP.

¶46

11. Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶48

¶49