Madras High Court
J.K.S.Sathathunisa vs The District Collector on 14 February, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.No.4867 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P.No.4867 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.5396 of 2025 in W.P.No.4867 of 2025
J.K.S.Sathathunisa .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri Collectorate,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Division Office,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Executive Officer,
Kaveripattinam Town Panchayat,
Krishnagiri District.
5.N.Mohamed John .. Respondents
Page Nos.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4867 of 2025
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the
fourth respondent and quash the impugned order of the fourth
respondent dated 24.12.2024 vide Na.Ka.No.794/2024/A1 as the
same is illegal and ultra vires and consequently direct the respondents
1 to 4 to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated
30.12.2024 and 27.01.2025 and as the property in S.No.612/21 of
Kaveripattinam Village is petitioner's property by restoring the revenue
records as stood prior to UDR survey.
For Petitioner : Ms.Chitra Sampath,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.S.Baskaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
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 24.12.2024
bearing reference Na.Ka.No.794/2024/A1 issued by R4 [the Executive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Officer, Kaveripattinam Town Panchayat, Krishnagiri District]'
(hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience
and clarity).
2. Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned senior counsel instructed by
Mr.T.S.Baskaran, 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 senior counsel's say.
3. Issue notice.
4. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader,
accepts notice for official respondents i.e., R1 to R4.
5. The scope of captioned main WP is substantially narrow,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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]:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.'
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, R4 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the town panchayat; '
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 R4 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. A representation dated 30.12.2024 has since been
submitted by the writ petitioner, R4 shall pass final orders.
10. Accordingly, the following order is made:
i. Impugned notice issued by R4 shall now be treated
as a SCN under Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act;
ii. The representation dated 30.12.2024 sent by the
writ petitioner shall be considered and final orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall be made as per proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of
TNULB Act.
iii. Though obvious, we make it clear that any coercive
action will be subject to / depending on final orders
to be made by R4 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, R4, while passing final orders,
shall do so untrammelled by the observations made
in this order.
11. Captioned WP stands disposed of with the
aforementioned observations and directives in the aforesaid manner.
Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP) thereat is
disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[M.S., J.] [K.G.T., J.]
14.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mmi
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri Collectorate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Division Office,
Krishnagiri.
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
mmi
3.The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Executive Officer,
Kaveripattinam Town Panchayat,
Krishnagiri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
