Madras High Court
K.Subburam vs The District Collector on 19 February, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.P.(MD)No.4333 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.4333 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.3108 of 2025
K.Subburam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Watrap Taluk, Watrap,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Executive Officer,
W.Pudupatti Town Panchayat,
Watrap Taluk,
Virudhunagar.
5.A.Padmanabhan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining
to the 4th respondent notice Na.Ka.No.204 of 2024, dated 22.01.2025, to quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.4333 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Govindarajan
For R1 to R4 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
***
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
The present writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorari, to quash the
impugned notice, dated 22.01.2025. Through the impugned order, the 4th
respondent Executive Officer had directed the petitioner to remove the
encroachments within a period of 15 days, otherwise, the respondents would be
constrained to remove the encroachments and the cost would be recovered from
the petitioner.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the said property is a
residential property belonging to the petitioner’s family for more than 90 years
and the petitioner is title and possession of the said property. The said fact would
be evident from the Civil Court judgment rendered in O.S.No.124 of 1945, dated
30.03.1946. Further while issuing patta in the name of the petitioner, the
respondents had incorrectly stated the extent of the property. Hence, the
petitioner submitted a petition to correct the extent in the light of the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed in O.S.No.124 of 1945. Without considering the facts stated above, the
present impugned notice is issued. Further, the respondents had directly issued an
order to remove the encroachment without issuing show cause notice. Hence, the
notice is issued without opportunity to the petitioner, which is violative of
principles of natural justice. Further, the respondents did not survey and
demarcate the land stated in the notice and also failed to take into consideration of
the fact that the petitioner’s residence was constructed and was existing for
several decades. The petitioner has also made an application to correct the extent
of the residential property. Further, at the instance of the 5th respondent, the notice
is issued. The 5th respondent is a land grabber, taking advantage of the
petitioner’s absence is trying to grab the land. Hence, the present writ petition is
filed.
3. On the other hand, the Learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned notice was issued by
the Executive Officer of W.Pudupatti Town Panchayat, based on the direction of
the Tahsildar of Watrap. The said Tahsildar is the heading the group to remove the
encroachment and has passed an order in NA.KA.No.A4/2588/2024, dated
14.11.2024. Based on the said direction, the impugned notice was issued.
Further, the 3rd respondent has identified the encroachment to the extent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
0.00.06 square meter comprising of steps, sunshade and balcony. Therefore, there
is no illegality in the said order.
4. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the said order was issued without giving any show cause notice to the
writ petitioner. Any removal of encroachment ought to be as per law, especially,
after surveying the property and after giving show cause notice directing the
encroacher to submit objection / explanation, if any. Once the objections are
submitted, the respondents ought to pass an order, after giving a personal hearing,
if need be. In the present case, the respondents have directly issued the order to
remove the encroachment without giving any opportunity to the petitioner.
Further, it is seen that the respondents have stated that the petitioner has
encroached by putting up sun shade and balcony. Whether it would amount to
encroachment or unauthorized construction ought to be considered. Further the
petitioner is having suit judgment in his favour.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of
setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to submit his objections
along with documents, especially judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.124 of
1945 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order. The respondents shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of
eight weeks therefrom.
6. With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
19.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Watrap Taluk, Watrap,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Executive Officer,
W.Pudupatti Town Panchayat,
Watrap Taluk,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
