Madras High Court
Sundararajan vs The District Collector/Monitory ... on 7 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.P.(MD) No.19031 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD) No.19031 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.16108 of 2024
Sundararajan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector/Monitory Committee,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Thasildar,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
East Panchayat,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The President,
Kulloor Santhai Panchayat,
Kulloor Santhai,
Arupukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
5.Sundaramahalingam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the second
respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa2/4526/2021 dated 16.07.2024 and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(MD) No.19031 of 2024
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Government Advocate
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice
for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, learned Government
Advocate takes notice for the respondents 3 and 4. Notice to the fifth
respondent is deemed unnecessary. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken
up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is visited with
an order under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905, on
22.04.2024. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the
said order has been challenged by the petitioner under Section 10 of the
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, before the District Collector, we
do not find any such appeal having been filed. The alleged appeal that is
found at page no.44 of the paper book is only a reply notice and does not
contain any grounds of challenge excepting to state that a suit is already
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pending. Admittedly there is no order of injunction protecting the possession
of the petitioner in the suit.
3.The next contention of the learned counsel is based on the judgment
of us made in W.P.(MD)No.5924 of 2023 dated 17.03.2023, where we have,
after considering the provisions of Section 131(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat
Act, 1994, held that the proceedings for eviction shall be initiated only by
the Revenue Thasildar and the same cannot be delegated to the Block
Development Officer. Therefore, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is
set aside and the Thasildar is directed to proceed further under the
provisions of Land Encroachment Act r/w. Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayat Act.
4.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
07.08.2024
NCC : No
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Mrn/Sml
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector/Monitory Committee,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Thasildar,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
East Panchayat,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The President,
Kulloor Santhai Panchayat,
Kulloor Santhai,
Arupukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn/Sml
07.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
