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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Main WP disposed by relegating the writ petitioner to the statutory appeal under Section 10 of the 1905 Act before the first respondent; time to appeal extended to 27.09.2025 (period 28.08.2025 to 11.09.2025 excluded per the principle underlying Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963); no coercive action till 27.09.2025 and thereafter subject to any Section 10-B stay petition; no merits view expressed on the impugned notice/order; rights of the sixth respondent preserved; W.M.P. for stay closed as infructuous; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained notwithstanding the efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (alternate remedy rule), and whether notice to the private sixth respondent could be dispensed with. +1 more

Court's answer

It is undisputed that the alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Section 10 of the 1905 Act is efficacious and effective, and a provision exists to seek stay pending appeal under Section 10-B.

Ratio / Principle

On the facts and attendant circumstances, this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to the alternate remedy of statutory appeal.

Key takeaways

Respectfully following the Girnar principle (Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1), this Court has repeatedly held that the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is a self-contained Code.obiter¶45
The alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule but a rule of discretion; here it was exercised in favour of relegation because the matter turns heavily on facts and nobody contended the remedy was inefficacious.ratio¶50
Limitation for the statutory appeal is 30 days from receipt of the order (Section 11(1)). The impugned order was served on 14.08.2025 and the WP presented on 28.08.2025 (14th day); excluding 28.08.2025 to 11.09.2025 by applying the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the writ petitioner has another 16 days (i.e., until 27.09.2025) to file the statutory appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Division Bench of M. Sundar and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ.; order by M. Sundar, J.) disposed of W.P.No.34638 of 2025 (with W.M.P.No.38835 of 2025) on 11.09.2025. Certiorari was sought against a Tahsildar's notice dated 30.07.2025 under Section 7 and notice/order dated 14.08.2025 under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Holding the 1905 Act to be a self-contained Code in line with the Girnar principle (Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1), and noting the undisputed efficacy of the Section 10 statutory appeal before the District Collector with a stay facility under Section 10-B, the Court exercised its discretion (stressing the alternate-remedy rule is discretionary, not absolute, and the matter was fact-heavy) to relegate the petitioner to the statutory appeal without expressing any merits view on the impugned notice/order. With limitation fixed at 30 days under Section 11(1), service on 14.08.2025 and presentation of the WP on 28.08.2025, the period from 28.08.2025 to 11.09.2025 was excluded applying the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, leaving 16 days i.e., until 27.09.2025 to appeal. An appeal with a Section 10-B stay petition filed by 27.09.2025 is to be considered on its own merits untrammelled by the order; no coercive action till 27.09.2025, and thereafter only per the stay petition's outcome; failing an appeal, the authorities may proceed without further reference. Rights of the private respondent (sixth respondent) were expressly preserved and notice to him dispensed with. W.M.P. closed as infructuous; no order as to costs.

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :11.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

W.P.No.34638 of 2025 &

W.M.P.No.38835 of 2025

Mr.Ethirajan

Mr.D.Panneerselvam

Mr.R.Elumalai ... Petitioners

Vs.

The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram

The Revenue Divisional Officer Tindivanam Villupuram District

The Tahsildar Gingee Taluk Villupuram District

The Block Development Officer Vallam, Gingee Taluk Villupuram District

Page Nos.1/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

The Village Administrative Officer Pondhai Village Gingee Taluk Villupuram District

Mr.K.Maharajan S/o.Karikalan ... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent vide impugned notices dated 30.07.2025 and 14.08.2025 respectively under Sections 7 and 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and to quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balaguru Swamy For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Addl. Govt. Pleader R1 to R5

ORDER

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

Captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] has been

filed with a prayer seeking issue of a writ of certiorari qua a notice dated 30.07.2025 issued by third respondent [The Tahsildar, Gingee Taluk, Page Nos.2/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

Villupuram District] and a notice/order dated 14.08.2025 made by third respondent.

The afore-referred 30.07.2025 notice issued by third respondent shall be referred to as 'impugned notice' and notice/order dated 14.08.2025 issued by third respondent shall be referred to as 'impugned order', both for the sake of convenience and clarity. To be noted, impugned notice is one under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} and impugned order is one under Section 6 of said 1905 Act.

Mr.R.Balaguru Swamy, learned counsel for writ petitioners submits

that post impugned order, writ petitioners have sent a detailed representation said to be dated 25.08.2025 but the writ petitioners are under threat of dispossession/demolition.

Issue notice to official respondents.

Page Nos.3/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R1 to R5 and submits that the impugned order is an appealable order as a statutory appeal remedy is available vide Section 10 of said 1905 Act and the appellate authority is first respondent.

This Court finds that the impugned order is the consequence of the impugned notice. This Court also finds that the matter turns on alternate remedy rule. Therefore, the scope of the captioned main WP is very limited and in this view of the matter, notice to private respondent (sixth respondent) is dispensed with as main WP can be disposed of by making an order which does not impact the rights of private respondent (sixth respondent). Not only will this order not impact the rights of sixth respondent but it is also made clear that all the rights and contentions of sixth respondent will remain preserved untrammelled by this order. Therefore, we dispense with notice to sixth respondent and take up the main WP with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel.

Page Nos.4/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

There is no disputation or contestation before this Court that the alternate remedy vide Section 10 of said 1905 Act is efficacious and effective. This Court also finds that there is a provision to seek stay pending appeal vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act.

8. This Court, respectfully following the Girnar principle being law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1 ) , has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. To be noted, Girnar principle is that if a statute provides for a complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by that law and its dependence on other legislations is either absent or minimal, such a statute is a self contained Code.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the attendant factors, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy of statutory appeal. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to write that this Court is acutely conscious

Page Nos.5/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

that alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule and that it is a rule of discretion. In this case, we find that the matter inter alia turns heavily on facts and that is the one of the reasons why we are exercising discretion in favour of relegating the writ petitioner to alternate remedy. In any event, as already alluded to supra, it is nobody's case that alternate remedy is either inefficacious or ineffective.

10. As regards, alternate remedy, the prescribed period of limitation is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order by the person concerned. This is vide Section 11(1) of said 1905 Act. In this case, this Court is informed that impugned order was served on the writ petitioner on the same day i.e., on 14.08.2025. The writ petitioner has presented the captioned WP in this Court on the fourteenth day viz., on 28.08.2025. We exclude the period from 28.08.2025 to this date (11.09.2025) by applying the underpinning principle qua Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This means that writ petitioner has another 16 days from today to file the statutory appeal.

Page Nos.6/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

11. We are not interfering with the impugned notice and the impugned

order. We are not expressing any view or opinion on the impugned order or the impugned notice but we make it clear that if statutory appeal along with stay petition under Section 10-B of said 1905 Act is filed on or before 27.09.2025, the same shall be considered by appellate authority (first respondent) on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by instant order. We also deem it appropriate to make it clear that there shall be no coercive action till 27.09.2025 and even thereafter, coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be subject to and depending on the outcome of the stay petition under Section 10-B of said 1905 Act if the writ petitioner chooses to avail alternate remedy. If the writ petitioner does not file statutory appeal within the aforesaid time line, it will be open to the authorities to proceed further pursuant to the impugned notice and impugned order without further reference to this Court.

Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. In the light of what this Court is written regarding coercive action, captioned WMP for

Page Nos.7/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

stay has become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed having become

infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 11.09.2025 (1/3)

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No gpa

Page Nos.8/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

To

The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram

The Revenue Divisional Officer Tindivanam Villupuram District

The Tahsildar Gingee Taluk Villupuram District

The Block Development Officer Vallam, Gingee Taluk Villupuram District

The Village Administrative Officer Pondhai Village Gingee Taluk Villupuram District

Page Nos.9/10

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

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

M.SUNDAR, J., and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.,

gpa

W.P.No.34638 of 2025

11.09.2025

Page Nos.10/10

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