Dismissed¶38

D. Subadra Devi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC2 Apr 2026WP/35151/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ against show cause notice; Section 7 Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905; Section 6 final notice; encroachment of Government land; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; patta S.No.23/3 Ilampillai Village Salem; interim order enjoyed 21 years; liberty to submit representation; removal of encroachment; writ petitions dismissed no costs; Madras High Court; neutral citation 2026:MHC:1381; WP Nos. 35151 to 35157 of 2005; decided 02-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with no costs; petitioners given liberty to submit representation with documents within two weeks, whereafter the competent authority is to take a final decision, issue final notice under Section 6 of the Act and complete any enforcement action within three months; connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

D. Subadra Devi, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition is entertainable against a show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

No writ petition lies against a show cause notice unless the notice was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Where petitioners have not submitted their explanation to the competent authority, grounds raised on merits in the writ petitions cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review.

¶29

Key takeaways

Petitioners are granted liberty to submit their representation along with documents, if any, within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and the competent authority shall consider the same and take a final decision.ratio¶32
On receipt of any such explanation, the competent authority shall issue final notice under Section 6 of the Act and proceed with enforcement action for removal of encroachments, if any identified, completing the entire exercise within three months.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S.M. Subramaniam and K. Surender, JJ.; order by S.M. Subramaniam J.) dismissed WP Nos. 35151 to 35157 of 2005, filed in 2005 under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash a show cause notice dated 3.10.2005 issued by the Revenue Inspector, Vembadithalam, Salem under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and to direct issuance of patta. Holding that no writ lies against a show cause notice unless it was issued by an incompetent authority lacking jurisdiction, and that merits-based grounds cannot be adjudicated in judicial review where no explanation was submitted to the authority, the Court noted the petitions lay pending about 21 years with the benefit of interim orders despite identified encroachments on Government land. Petitioners were granted liberty to submit representations with documents within two weeks; the competent authority is to take a final decision, issue final notice under Section 6 of the Act and complete any enforcement action for removal of encroachments within three months. Petitions dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

2026:MHC:1381

¶2

WP No. 35151 to 35157 of 2005

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 02-04-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶9

WP Nos. 35151 to 35157 of 2005

¶10

WP.No.35151 of 2005:

D. Subadra Devi

..Petitioner(s)

The District Collector, Salem.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer Salem.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Salem.

¶17

The Revenue Inspector, Vembadithalam, Salem.

¶18

..Respondent(s)

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records of the 4^th respondent comprised in his notice dated 3.10.2005, quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta to the petitioner land comprised in S.No.23/3, D.No.9-1/72, Kakkapalayam Road, Ilampillai Village, Salem admeasuring 002.0 acres.

¶20

In all Writ Petitions

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rahul Balaji

¶22

For Respondent(s): Mr.T..Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶23

Page1 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 35151 to 35157 of 2005

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶28

The present writ petitions have been instituted challenging the show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (For brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’)

¶29

No writ against the show cause notice is entertainable, unless such notice has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction. Petitioners, instead of submitting their explanation along with the documents, if any, have chosen to file writ petitions by raising certain grounds on merits, which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review in writ proceedings.

¶30

Curiously, writ petitions challenging the show cause notice instituted in the year 2005 were kept pending before this Court for the past about 21 years and not listed for a long time. That apart, petitioner enjoyed the benefit of interim order for the past about 21 years, despite the fact that authorities identified the encroachments in the Government land.

¶31

In view of the facts and circumstances, petitioners are at liberty to

¶32

submit their representation along with the documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of any such explanation, the competent authority shall consider the same, take a final

¶33

Page2 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 35151 to 35157 of 2005

¶36

decision, and thereafter issued final notice under Section 6 of the Act and proceed with the enforcement action for removal of encroachments, if any, identified. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of

¶37

three months thereafter.

¶38