RADHAkRISHNAN Vs the District Collector

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 5^th respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A1/425/2024 dated 07.02.2025 and quash the

¶17

Page Nos.1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶20

same and consequently, direct the respondents to update the petitioner's name in online patta & chitta records within a stipulated time.

¶21

For petitioner Mr. Krishnasamy Chinnasamy along with Ms. M. Hemalatha For RR1 to 4, 6 Mr. M.S. Arasakumar Government Advocate For R5 Mr. P. Ganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[made by M. SUNDAR, J.]

¶24

Nucleus of the captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) is a notice dated 07.02.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.A1/425/2024 issued by R5 (Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District) under Section 6 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' ( for brevity 'said 1905 Act'). This notice shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶25

Mr. Krishnasamy Chinnasamy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is on the Video Conferencing platform and Ms.M.Hemalatha, another counsel on record for writ petitioner, is in the physical Court. (To be noted, this is a hybrid hearing which is a regular/routine/daily feature in this Court).

¶26

Page Nos.2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶29

Though not argued by learned counsel for writ petitioner,

¶30

we notice that the impugned order has been made by R5. An order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act can be made by (i) Collector, (ii) Tahsildar, (iii) Deputy Tahsildar and (iv) any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf (who is 'authorised officer'). If at all and if that be so, R5 can obviously fall only under category (iv) i.e., 'authorised officer'. Therefore, to ascertain this position, we issue notice.

¶31

Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate,

¶32

accepts notice for RR 1 to 4 and 6 and Mr. P. Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for R5.

¶33

Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, learned State counsel, very fairly submits that R5 is not an 'authorised officer' within the meaning of Section 6 of said 1905 Act. Therefore, we have to necessarily issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order as it is wholly without jurisdiction. We do so.

¶34

Page Nos.3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶37

Be that as it may, it is necessary to capture some other

¶38

collateral aspects/facts of the matter.

¶39

Learned State counsel submits that prior to the impugned

¶40

order, a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act, being a notice dated 27.11.2024 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.A1/425/2024, was issued by

¶41

R5. A scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶42

Page Nos.4/8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶45

Obviously, notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act also is wholly without jurisdiction as a Section 7 notice can be issued by (i) Tahsildar (ii) Collector, (iii) Deputy Tahsildar, (iv) Revenue Inspector and (v) authorised officer i.e., any officer specified by the State Government in this behalf. Learned State counsel fairly submits that R5 is not an 'authorised officer' qua Section 7 either. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to quash Section 7 notice also. We do so.

¶46

Now that the impugned order (under Section 6 of said

¶47

1905 Act) and show cause notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act which preceded the impugned order have been quashed, the entire matter is on a clean slate. It is back to square one.

¶48

In the aforesaid scenario, learned State counsel submits that survey has been conducted and there is encroachment in Survey No.30/6A in Kaattuvannanchur area of Sankarapuram Town Panchayat, Sankarapuram Taluk in Kallakurichi District (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity). Learned State counsel also submits that the writ petitioner is an encroacher qua said land.

¶49

Page Nos.5/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶52

We do not express any opinion on the alleged encroachment. However, we make it clear that it is open to the State, including any of the respondents herein, to initiate appropriate action for removal of encroachment qua said land under said 1905 Act itself or under any other statute, be it The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999) or any other statute. To be noted, learned State counsel adds that said land has been classified as ghlil ; poramboke and therefore, is a public land.

¶53

12. Though obvious and there is allusion about this supra , for the sake of specificity, we clarify that it is open to the respondents to issue notice afresh for removal of alleged encroachment qua said land either under said 1905 Act itself by competent authority or under any other statute.

¶54

Page Nos.6/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶57

13. Apropos, the sequitur is captioned WP is allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari albeit with preservation of rights of State/respondents in the manner set out supra in this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 06.03.2025

¶59

cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No

¶60

Page Nos.7/8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P. No.7869 of 2025

¶63

M.SUNDAR, J.