Madras High Court

Arunachalam @ Sekar vs The District Collector on 13 February, 2025

Author: M.Sundar

Bench: M.Sundar

                                                                                  W.P.No.4629 of 2025

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 13.02.2025

                                                             CORAM

                                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
                                                         and
                          THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI


                                       W.P.No.4629 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.5132 of 2025

                     Arunachalam @ Sekar                                       Petitioner
                                                                 vs.
                     1.           The District Collector
                                  Office of the Collector
                                  Vengikal
                                  Thiruvannamalai District

                     2.           The Revenue Divisional Officer
                                  Office of the Collector
                                  Vengikal
                                  Thiruvannamalai District

                     3.           The District Revenue Officer
                                  Office of the Collector
                                  Vengikal
                                  Thiruvannamalai District

                     4.           The Tahsildar
                                  Keezhpennathur Tahsildar Office
                                  Keezhpennathur
                                  Thiruvannamalai District

                     5.           The Executive Officer
                                  Vettavalam Panchayat
                                  Thiruvannamalai District

                     6.           D. Vinoth                               Respondents


                     Page Nos.1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       W.P.No.4629 of 2025

                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

                     issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records

                     pertaining to the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 in Na.Ka.No.365 of

                     2024 issued by the fifth respondent and quash the same and

                     consequently, direct the fourth respondent to grant patta in favour of

                     the petitioner for the property situated at No.6, Thandavarayan Street,

                     Vettavallam Porur, Keezhpennathur Taluk comprised in S.No.221/98,

                     Ward No.09 measuring about 2 cents.

                                        For petitioners    :     Mr. R. Bhagawat Krishna

                                        For RR 1 to 5      :     Mr.T.K.Saravanan
                                                                 Additional Government Pleader

                                                           ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of

brevity) has been filed inter alia assailing a 'notice dated 27.11.2024

bearing reference Na.Ka.No.365 of 2024 issued by R5 [the Executive

Officer, Vettavalam Panchayat]' (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the

sake of brevity, convenience and clarity).

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

2. Mr. R. Bhagawat Krishna, learned counsel on record for

writ petitioner, adverting to the impugned notice, submitted that the

impugned notice has been issued under Section 128 of 'The Tamil

Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' (hereinafter

'TNULB Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) but it has not

called upon the writ petitioner to show cause in seven days. On the

contrary, it straightaway calls upon the writ petitioner to remove

alleged encroachment within seven days, is learned counsel's say.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader,

accepts notice for official respondents i.e., RR 1 to 5.

5. The scope of captioned main WP is substantially narrow,

legal drill on hand is very limited and therefore, with the consent of

learned counsel on both sides, main WP is taken up in the Admission

Board i.e., Motion List.

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

6. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to

extract and reproduce Section 128 of TNULB Act in its entirety and the

same reads as follows:

'128. Power to remove encroachment from public place. -

(1) The Commissioner may, -

(a) remove without any notice any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching street or public place or the [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] with the municipal limit;

(b) remove any immovable structure whether permanent or of temporary nature encroaching the street or public place or the [land belonging to municipality or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, after issuing a show cause notice for such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof:

Provided that the Commissioner shall consider any representation received within the time limit, before passing final orders.

(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space (not being private property) in any public street or any [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to [fifty thousand rupees]:

Provided that the Court may, for any adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.'

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

7. If the impugned notice is one under Section 128 of TNULB

Act, as matter on hand pertains to immovable structure, writ petitioner

should be given seven days time to respond to impugned notice and

thereafter, R5 should pass an order (final orders) considering such

response. To be noted, Section 128 of TNULB Act talks about

'Commissioner'. In the instant case, we are now concerned with a

Town Panchayat. Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of TNULB Act, defines

the term 'Commissioner' and the same reads as follows:

'2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

(1) .................

(2) ................

(3) .................

(4) .................

(5) .................

(6) ................

(7) "Commissioner" means -

(a) in relation to a municipal corporation and municipal council, the Commissioner of the municipal corporation or municipal council, as the case may be; and

(b) in relation to a town panchayat, the Executive Officer of the town panchayat; '

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

8. A careful perusal of clause (b) of sub-section (7) of Section

2 of TNULB Act makes it clear that 'Executive Officer of a Town

Panchayat' is the 'Commissioner' within the meaning of TNULB Act.

Therefore, the power of R5 to issue a notice under Section 128(1)(b)

of TNULB Act is clear.

9. In the light of the narrative thus far, we are of the

considered view that it would be appropriate to take up the main WP

and write that the impugned notice shall now be treated as a 'show

cause notice' ('SCN' for the sake of brevity) under Section 128(1)(b) of

TNULB Act enabling the writ petitioner to send a representation along

with supporting documents (if so advised and if so desired) within

seven days from today i.e., by 19.02.2025 and that if the same is

done, R5 shall pass final orders.

10. Accordingly, the following order is made:

i. Impugned notice issued by R5 shall now be treated as a SCN under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act;

ii. Noticee/writ petitioner (if so advised and if so

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

desired) shall send a representation within seven days from today, i.e., on or before 19.02.2025;

iii. If the writ petitioner/noticee does not send a representation within aforereferred timeline and if no other representation is received, it is open to the official respondents to proceed (post 19.02.2025) qua removal of immovable structure which is subject matter of impugned notice;

iv. If the writ petitioner/noticee sends a representation within aforereferred timeline, the same shall be considered and final orders shall be made as per proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act;

v. Though obvious, we make it clear that any coercive action will be subject to / depending on final orders to be made by R5 vide proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter and therefore, R5, while passing final orders, shall do so untrammelled by the observations made in this order; and

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

vi. We further make it clear (though obvious) that all the rights and contentions of private respondent are preserved for being canvassed before the authority concerned.

Captioned WP stands disposed of with the aforementioned

observations and directives in the aforesaid manner. Consequently,

captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat is disposed of as closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                               [M.S., J.]                [K.G.T., J.]
                                                                            13.02.2025
                     cad
                     Index : Yes / No
                     Neutral Citation : Yes / No