Allowed¶29

Santha v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC4 Feb 2026WP/2052/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 2052 of 2026; 04-02-2026; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act; Section 6 notice; competent authority; Tahsildar; Block Development Officer; Section 131 Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act; village panchayat encroachment; Omalur Taluk Salem District; notice set aside; writ petition allowed; 2026:MHC:100 M.Jebaraj Vs. The Commissioner; encroachment removal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Section 6 notice dated 08.01.2026 set aside; Block Development Officer permitted to submit a report to the jurisdictional Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. ¶29

Santha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Special Officer/Block Development Officer (village Panchayat) was competent to issue the Section 6 notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, given that the competent authority under the Act is only the Tahsildar. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the Block Development Officer is competent to issue notice to the encroacher seeking removal, but if the encroachment is not removed, his only duty is to submit a report before the Tahsildar, who is the appropriate person to proceed in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice issued by the Block Development Officer is not in accordance with law, since the Block Development Officer is not competent to issue notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act; the Tahsildar is the competent authority under the Act.

¶29

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding the invalidity of the direct notice, the Block Development Officer remains empowered to submit a report to the jurisdictional Tahsildar for invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to remove the encroachments by following the procedures contemplated under law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Order by C. Kumarappan J.; bench also comprising S.M. Subramaniam J.), WP No. 2052 of 2026, decided 04-02-2026: A writ petition challenged a Section 6 notice dated 08.01.2026 (proceeding Na.Ka. No.67/2026/T6) issued by the Special Officer/Block Development Officer (village Panchayat), Omalur Taluk, Salem District. The Court held that under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act the competent authority is only the Tahsildar; under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act the Block Development Officer may seek removal of encroachment but, if not removed, his only duty is to report to the Tahsildar, who proceeds under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Relying on 2026:MHC:100 (M.Jebaraj Vs. The Commissioner), where this Court held the BDO incompetent to issue a Section 6 notice, the Court found the impugned notice not in accordance with law, set it aside and allowed the petition, while observing that the BDO is empowered to submit a report to the jurisdictional Tahsildar for invoking the Act. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 2052 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

WP No. 2052 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.2194 & 2197 of 2026

¶7

Santha

¶8

W/o.Selvam, D.No.1-54, Ramakrishnanur Maramangalam village Tholasampatti Panchayat and Post Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur Salem District.

¶12

The Tahsildar Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶13

The Special officer/ Block Development Officer (village Panchayat) omalur Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

To call for the records relating to proceeding in Na.Ka. No.67/ 2026/T6, dated 08.01.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and pass.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 2052 of 2026

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Elango For Respondent(s): Mr. T. Arun Kumar,AGP for R1 to R3 Mr.M.S.Premkumar for R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed to assail the order issued under Section 6 notice on 08.01.2026 by the Block Development Officer.

¶23

The main contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, the competent authority is only the Tahsildar, whereas the present impugned notice was issued by the Block Development Officer.

¶24

The very submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in tune with the scheme of Land Encroachment Act. It is pertinent to mention that under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, the Block Development Officer is competent to issue notice to the encroacher with a request to remove the encroachment and if such encroachment is not removed his only duty is to submit a report before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar is the appropriate person to proceed with in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. When this Court decided similar facts and circumstances has held that the Block Development Officer is not competent to issue notice under section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act in 2026:MHC:100 M.Jebaraj

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 2052 of 2026

¶28

Vs. The Commissioner.

¶29

In view of the above settled legal position, we are of the firm view that the impugned notice is not in accordance with law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside. However, the Block Development Officer is empowered to submit a report to the jurisdictional Tahsildar for invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to remove the encroachments by following the procedures as contemplated under law. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 04-02-2026

¶31

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

¶32

VSI

¶33

¶34