Madras High Court
M.Tharabai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 March, 2022
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.P.No.4323 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.4434, 4436 and 4437 of 2022
M.Tharabai ... Petitioner
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its
The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruppattur District,
Thiruppattur.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruppattur District,
Thiruppattur.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vaniyambadi Division,
Vaniyambadi,
Thiruppattur District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Ambur Taluk,
Ambur.
6.The Junior Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kailasagiri,
Thiruppattur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
7.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Pernambut,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of fifth respondent's
impugned notice dated 07.01.2022 issued under Section 7 of Tamil
Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for property in S.No.359/2 and
S.No.359/3 measuring total extent of 43 cents situated at Kailasagiri
Village, Ambur Taluk, Thirupattur District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Govindasamy
For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
[Order of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.]
Mrs.M.Tharabai, W/o.Mohanavelu, residing at No.4/70,
Panangattur Village, Neriyampattu Post, Ambur Taluk, Thiruppattur
District, has come to this Court challenging the impugned notice dated
07.01.2022 issued under Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment
Act, 1905 by the Tahsildar, Ambur Taluk/the fifth respondent herein in
respect of land in S.No.359/2 and S.No.359/3 measuring 43 cents
situated at Kailasagiri Village, Ambur Taluk, Thirupattur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
2.Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu while introducing a scheme
called “Landless Agricultural Family Land Assignment Special Scheme
2006” providing two acres of land to the poor and downtrodden
agricultural people, passed Government Order vide G.O.No.396,
Revenue [LD 3(2)] Department, dated 23.06.2006. While
implementing the said Government Order, the Government had
assigned 6.5 ares in Survey No.359/2 and 11.0 ares in Survey
No.359/3 to the petitioner totally 43 cents have been assigned to the
petitioner at Kailasagiri Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District as per
the assessment order dated 15.12.2006 bearing No.183/1416. That
shows that the petitioner is a landless agriculturist and she is fully
eligible to get the assignment of two acres of land under the said
scheme. While the petitioner was enjoying the land, some
unscrupulous persons having vengeance against the petitioner gave a
frivolous and false complaint. On the basis of the complaint, an
enquiry was held and Sub Collector, Thiruppattur, has cancelled the
assignment patta without even issuing notice to her and without
holding enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner came to this Court
with W.P.No.23502 of 2014 on the ground that the order passed by
the Sub-Collector, Thiruppattur was in violation of the principles of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
natural justice. This Court, after appreciating the fact that the
impugned order therein was passed in violation of principles of natural
justice, set aside the same and remitted the matter back to the same
authority to hear the petitioner and pass orders on merits. When the
matter was remitted back to Sub Collector, Thiruppatur, Vellore
District, due to trifurcation of Vellore District, the jurisdiction went to
Revenue Divisional Officer, Vaniyampadi, Thiruppattur District. But
due to COVID-19 pandemic situation, the petitioner, aged about 60
years, was unable to appear before the authority. Therefore, she
sought four weeks time. But, the petitioner was granted only a week's
time and therefore, the petitioner was unable to appear before the
authority due to COVID-19 pandemic situation and the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Vaniyampadi, Tiruppattur District, passed a wrong
order again without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
As against which, the petitioner went before District Revenue Officer
who had also confirmed the order passed by his subordinates and
refused to consider the case on merits. Therefore, now the petitioner
has filed appeal before the Commissioner of Land Administration under
Section 15 of the Revenue Standing Order. When the petitioner filed
Statutory Appeal before the first respondent, during the pendency of
the said appeal, the Tahsildar has issued notice under Section 7 of the
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which is not legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner relied on an unreported judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in W.P.Nos.17785 and 17786 of 2014, dated
17.09.2014 [Dr.G.Viswanathan -vs- State of Tamil Nadu]
wherein this Court has held that when the appeal is pending for
consideration any notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu
Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is not legally well. Again in yet another
unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos.22639 to 22641 of 2017, dated 24.08.2017
[D.Dhanavel -vs- The District Collector] this Court also reiterated
the principle that no notice under under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu
Land Encroachment Act, 1905, can be issued when appeal is pending
and no action can be taken by the lower authorities.
3.At this stage, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, on written instructions,
submitted that the Tahisldar has sent a letter to him stating that he
would not take any action till the disposal of the appeal pending before
the first respondent.
4.Considering the fact that when the appeal filed by the
petitioner is pending before the first respondent, the impugned notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
dated 07.01.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Ambur Taluk/fifth
respondent herein is not legally sustainable in law and hence, the
same is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. The first respondent is
directed to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible. Since the electricity service connection to
the community hall has been disconnected, on making appropriate
application by the petitioner to the Electricity Board, shall be restored
subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the first
respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[T.R.,J.] [S.S.K.,J.]
01.03.2022
srm
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
To
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruppattur District,
Thiruppattur.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruppattur District,
Thiruppattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vaniyambadi Division,
Vaniyambadi,
Thiruppattur District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Ambur Taluk,
Ambur.
6.The Junior Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kailasagiri,
Thiruppattur District.
7.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Pernambut,
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.4323 of 2022
T.RAJA,J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J.
srm
W.P.No.4323 of 2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
