Dismissed¶35

Veeran v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Dec 2025WP(MD)/36309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternate remedy doctrine; writ maintainability; Section 10 appeal Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905; Section 6 encroachment order by Tahsildar Melur; Section 7 notice and natural justice; certiorari under Article 226; survey no. 178 Kallangadu Karungalkudi Melur Taluk Madurai; W.P.(MD) No.35556 of 2025 consistency; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal cited by counsel; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; dismissal with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Where there is an effective statutory appeal remedy and the records show that the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act was passed after due compliance with the procedure contemplated under the Act, the petitioners' right of redressal lies under Section 10 of the Act and the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. ¶33

Veeran Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Melur under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was vitiated for having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without following the due process contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

On the records, the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act was passed after due compliance with the procedure contemplated under the Act, i.e., after issuance of a notice under Section 7 on 27.10.2025 and consideration of the petitioners' representation; accordingly the objection of violation of natural justice does not justify writ interference.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶33

Key takeaways

Consistently with its earlier order dated 11.12.2025 dismissing the similar writ petition W.P.(MD) No.35556 of 2025 and directing recourse to the Section 10 appeal, this Court adopted the same course in the present case.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order/notice dated 28.11.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Melur under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of survey number 178 (59.08.00 hectare) at Kallangadu, Karungalkudi Post, Vanchinagaram, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, on the ground that it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without due process under Section 7 of the Act. Held: where an effective statutory appeal remedy exists under Section 10 of the Act and the records show that the impugned order was passed after due compliance with the prescribed procedure (notice under Section 7 dated 27.10.2025 followed by consideration of the petitioners' representation), the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked and the petitioners' right of redressal is the statutory appeal. The Court acted consistently with its earlier order dated 11.12.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.35556 of 2025. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.36309 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.36309 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.28890 & 28892 of 2025

¶7

1.Veeran

¶8

2.Periyakodangi ... Petitioners

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The District Collector District Collectorate Building Madurai-625 020

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Irrigation Tank Vellarippatti, Melur Madurai-625 122

¶12

3.The Thasildar Melur Main Road Melur, Madurai-625 106

¶13

4.The Revenue Inspector Karungalkudi Melur Taluk, Madurai District ... Respondents

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.36309 of 2025

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the proceeding of 28.11.2025 dated notice issued by the third respondent in respect of survey number 178 (59.08.00 hectare) at Kallangadu, Karungalkudi Post, Vanchinagaram, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Vallinayagam For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶21

Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice

¶22

for the respondents.

¶23

2. The petitioners herein, on receipt of an order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), are before this Court contending that the joint order passed under Section 6 of the Act without following due process of law has to be quashed.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.36309 of 2025

¶27

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, under Section 6 of the Act by the Tahsildar, Melur, was passed without affording an opportunity and following due process as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel relying upon a Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Asit Kumar

¶28

Kar v. State of West Bengal and others (Writ Petition (Civil) No.110 of 2008) submitted that it is a basic principle of natural justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence.

¶29

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed only after following due process of law. The petitioners were earlier issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act on 27.10.2025 and considering the representation of the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed under Section 6 of the Act on 28.11.2025. If at all the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, appeal remedy is provided under the statute under Section 10 of the Act and they have to resort to the appeal remedy available under the statute.

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.36309 of 2025

¶33

5. In the considered view of this Court, when there is an effective appeal remedy and the records show that the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act has been passed after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Act, the petitioners' right of redressal is available under Section 10 of the Act and the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

¶34

6. Further, this Court, by an order dated 11.12.2025, has dismissed the similar writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.35556 of 2025 and directed the petitioners therein to invoke the appeal remedy available under Section 10 of the Act.

¶35

7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 18.12.2025

¶37

(2/2)

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

krk

¶40

_____________ Page 4 of 6_