S.B.Bowmesh Vs the Thasildhar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

S.B.Bowmesh Vs the Thasildhar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition and the connected W.M.P.Nos.4512 to 4514 of 2025 are dismissed and the Court refrains from imposing costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the captioned writ petition should be entertained notwithstanding the statutory appeal remedy available under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (efficacious alternate remedy point). +1 more

Court's answer

The captioned writ petition does not pass muster in the Admission Board and is dismissed because an efficacious statutory alternate remedy is available to the writ petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Whether the writ petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of Government land turns heavily on facts; the writ petitioner must therefore resort to the statutory appeal under Section 10 of the 1905 Act rather than writ relief.

Key takeaways

The 1905 Act is a self-contained Code: show-cause under Section 7, order under Section 6 appealable under Section 10 (District Collector is the appellate authority), further revision under Section 10-A(3), and interim prayers under Section 10-B pending appeal/revision.ratio¶61
There is neither any material nor any argument that the alternate remedy is inefficacious.ratio¶62
The writ petition falls under none of the four Whirlpool exceptions (enforcement of fundamental rights; violation of natural justice principles; order wholly without jurisdiction; assailing the vires of a statute) and no such categorisation was even argued; hence it is a fit case for exercising the discretion under the alternate remedy rule against the writ petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certiorari under Article 226 against notice dated 03.01.2025 issued by the Tahsildar (first respondent) under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Writ petition dismissed at the Admission Board stage on the efficacious alternate remedy point - Whether the petitioner is an 'unauthorized occupant' within Section 3 of the 1905 Act turns heavily on facts and is left to the statutory appeal under Section 10 (District Collector is the appellate authority), with further revision under Section 10-A(3)/(1)(c) and interim relief under Section 10-B pending appeal/revision; the 1905 Act is 'a self contained Code in every sense of the expression' - Alternate remedy rule is not absolute but a rule of discretion and a self-imposed restraint; none of the four Whirlpool (CDJ 1998 SC 371) exceptions - enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice principles, order wholly without jurisdiction, or assailed vires of a statute - attracted or even argued, and no material showed the remedy inefficacious - Connected W.M.P.Nos.4512 to 4514 of 2025 perish with the main writ petition; costs not imposed.

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

&

W.M.P.Nos.4512 to 4514 of 2025

in

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

S.B.Bowmesh S/o.S.Bhagavathiappan

... Petitioner

vs

The Tahsildar Vandalore Taluk Chengalpattu Taluk – 603 210

The Village Administrative Officer Urapakkam Village Vandallur Taluk

Chengalpattu District – 603 210

The Revenue Inspector Vandalur Taluk Chengalpattu District – 603 210

Abirami Nagar, Vaigai Nagar Priya Nagar -1 & Priya Nagar-2

Page Nos.1/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

(Regn.No.28/2007) Rep. By its President Plot No.57, Abirami Nagar Urapakkam, Chennai – 603 210

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the impugned notice dated 03.01.2025 issued by the first respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act (No.III), 1905.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Kumar

O R D E R

[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 certiorari prayer assailing a 'notice/order dated 03.01.2025 made by R1' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

The impugned order has been made under Section 6 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience].

Page Nos.2/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

3. As against any decision or order made by R1 or his deputy (Deputy

Tahsildar) a statutory appeal remedy is available vide Section 10(a) of said

1905 Act. To be noted, Section 10 of said 1905 Act reads as follows:

'10. Appeal.-- An appeal shall lie--

(a) to the Collector from any decision or order passed by a Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar under this Act, and

(aa) to such officer as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) from any decision or order passed by an authorised officer under this Act and different appellate authorities may be specified for different classes of cases; and

(b) to the District Collector from any decision or order of a Collector passed otherwise than on appeal, and

(c) to the Commissioner of Land Administration from any decision or order of a District Collector passed otherwise than on appeal.'

4. Mr.S.S.Kumar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before us and this Court wanted learned counsel to address the Court on the

Page Nos.3/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

afore-referred alternate remedy point.

5. In response, learned counsel submitted that Section 3 of said 1905 Act makes it clear that it would apply only to persons who unauthorizedly occupy Government property but petitioner is an authorized occupant.

6. This Court finds that captioned writ petition does not pass muster

in the Admission Board and is liable to be dismissed on alternate remedy point and the reasons are as follows:

(i) The argument of learned counsel turns on the question

as to whether writ petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of

Government land or not, which turns heavily on facts and therefore, it is only appropriate that the writ petitioner resorts to statutory appeal under Section 10 of said 1905 Act;

(ii) This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a

self contained Code. The reason inter-alia is that there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under section 7 followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order under section 6 is appealable under section 10 [District Collector is the appellate authority] and there is a

Page Nos.4/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

provision for further revision to the Government under Section

10-A [Section 10-A(3) to be precise] of said 1905 Act. Pending

appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. Therefore, said 1905 Act is a self contained Code in every sense of the expression;

(iii) There is neither any material nor any argument in the Admission Board to the effect that alternate remedy is inefficacious;

(iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that alternate remedy rule is not an absolute rule and it is a rule of discretion. This Court has respectfully followed this principle. As regards exceptions to alternate remedy rule, the lead case is Whirlpool Case being judgment dated 26.10.1998 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in CDJ 1998 SC 371, which

carves out four exceptions and they are:

(i) Enforcement of fundamental rights;

(ii) Violation of Natural Justice Principles (NJP);

Page Nos.5/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

(iii) Order being 'wholly' without jurisdiction; and

(iv) when the vires of a statute are assailed.

Captioned WP does not fall under any of the categories and it is not even the argument of learned counsel for writ petitioner that it falls under any of the aforementioned categories. Inter-alia in this view of the matter, this Court writes that instant case is a fit case for exercising discretion qua alternate remedy rule against the writ petitioner;

(v) Alternate remedy rule no doubt is a self-imposed

restraint. This Court finds that this is a case where the selfimposed restraint should be exercised as there is no reason to make an exception to the self-imposed restraint;

(vi) As already alluded to supra, said 1905 Act is a

self-contained code and even against an order in appeal under Section 10 by the Appellate Authority, a further statutory revision lies under Section 10-A (1)(c) and pending appeal/revision, there is provision (Section 10-B) to seek interim stay.

Page Nos.6/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

7. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, this Court has no hesitation in writing that the captioned WP does not pass muster in the Admission Board on the short point i.e., point of efficacious alternate remedy being available to the writ petitioner.

8, Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Captioned writ miscellaneous petitions thereat also perish with the main WP and they are also dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which arguments were advanced in the Admission board, we refrain from imposing costs.

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order

gpa

Page Nos.7/8

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

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,

gpa

To

The Tahsildar Vandalore Taluk Chengalpattu Taluk – 603 210

The Village Administrative Officer Urapakkam Village Vandallur Taluk Chengalpattu District – 603 210

The Revenue Inspector Vandalur Taluk Chengalpattu District – 603 210

W.P.No.4025 of 2025

10.02.2025

Page Nos.8/8

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