Madras High Court
K.Rajkumar vs The District Collector on 24 January, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
W.P.No.2085 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.2085 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No. 2450 of 2025 in W.P. No.2085 of 2025
K.Rajkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Medavakkam Division,
Thambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in the notice
dated 16.12.2024 issued to the petitioner by 3rd respondent under
Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the
notice dated 04.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 6
of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and quash the same.
Page Nos.1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2085 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugavel
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
The subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter
'WP' for the sake of brevity) is 'land comprised in Survey No.123/26,
No.10, Kovilambakkam Village, Chengalpet District' (hereinafter 'said
land' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
2. Captioned main WP has been filed with a certiorari prayer
assailing two notices, details of which are as follows:
(i) Notice under Section 7 of 'The Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)'
{hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity} signed
by R3 (Revenue Inspector, Medavakkam Division,
Thambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District) on 16.12.2024
(hereinafter 'I impugned notice' for the sake of
convenience and clarity);
(ii) Notice/order signed by R2 (Tahsildar,
Thambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District) on 04.01.2025
under Section 6 of said 1905 Act (hereinafter 'II impugned
notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Aforementioned 'I impugned notice and II impugned notice' shall be
collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
3. After hearing Mr.P.Arumugavel, learned counsel on record for
writ petitioner in the Admission Board (Motion List), we find that
captioned main WP does not pass muster in the Admission Board. The
reasons shall be set out infra. While setting out the reasons, we will be
making an adumbration of the points, discussion, if any on the points
and our dispositive reasoning rolled into one. This adumbration is as
follows:
3.1 The writ petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration of title
qua said land being O.S.No.227 of 2024 on the file of the learned
Additional District Judge at Chengalpet. This suit is pending. In this
suit, the writ petitioner is the second plaintiff. The writ petitioner's
brother Mr.K.Rajan and his wife Ms.K.Kavery are plaintiffs 1 and 3
respectively. From the official e-courts website,we find that the suit is
pending and the next hearing date is 03.03.2025. A scanned
reproduction of the down load from official e-courts website is as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.2 The suit is pending pursuant to earlier judicial order. We find
that this is the second round of litigation and the writ petitioner had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26300 of 2018 and the same
along writ miscellaneous petitions thereat has been disposed of by
another Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 12.02.2024. To be
noted, there is no disputation that this earlier WP is directed against an
order dated 11.09.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.10905/2018/N1
made by R1 (District Collector, Kancheepuram District) being an order
in appeal under Section 10 of said 1905 Act. In this WP, Hon'ble
Division Bench has made it clear that said lands have been classified
as 'meikal poramboke (grazing land)' and 'odai (waterbody)' and
therefore, it is open to the authorities to initiate action under said
1905 Act and/or 'The Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of
Encroachment Act, 2007' (hereinafter 'Tanks Act' for the sake of
convenience and clarity);
3.3 This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self-
contained Code. The reason inter-alia is that there is a provision to
have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905
Act followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order
under Section 6 is appealable under Section 10 [District Collector is
the appellate authority] and there is a provision for further revision to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Government under Section 10-A [Section 10-A(3) to be precise] of
said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for
making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. Therefore,
said 1905 Act is a self-contained Code in every sense of the
expression.
3.4 Therefore, it is well open to the writ petitioner to assail the
two impugned notices by way of another appeal i.e., statutory appeal
under Section 10 of said 1905 Act, which will lie to R1 (District
Collector, Chengalpattu).
4. Learned counsel for writ petitioner placed before us a
judgment of this Court in Rangaraja Iyengar Vs. Achi Kannu
Ammal reported in 1972 L.W. 767 made by a Hon'ble Single Judge
in S.A.No.84 of 1957. This judgment is dated 03.03.1959. Though
learned counsel did not seek leave of this Court to rely on second
appeal jdugment of a Hon'ble Single Judge before the Division Bench,
we considered the same with due deference. We find that Rangaraja
Iyengar's case is a second appeal wherein there has been a full-
fledged trial qua title in the Trial Court which was carried to the first
appellate Court before reaching this Court. In the case on hand, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suit of the writ petitioner for declaration of title is pending and
therefore, we are of the considered view that Rangaraja Iyengar's
case does not come to the aid of the writ petitioner.
5. To be noted, notwithstanding very many averments and
grounds in the writ affidavit, learned counsel on record for the writ
petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned notices on
the aforementioned points in the Admission Board. Therefore, we have
dealt with the points which have been argued before us.
6. Before we drop the curtains, we deem it appropriate to write
that we noticed two points in this matter and they are as follows:
6.1 We are at a loss to understand the logic behind the officials
of the State issuing the impugned notices again when earlier round of
notices under Section 6 and 7 of said 1905 Act have culminated in
appeal under Section 10 of said 1905 Act which in turn challenged in
WP which also has been dismissed. Nonetheless as we are holding that
the matter does not pass muster in the Admission Board, we reserve
such points to be considered in another matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.2 We find from the official e-courts website of the District
Court that the defendants in the aforementioned civil suit are District
Collector, jurisdictional Revenue Inspector and Tahsildars of
Sholinganallur and Tambaram Taluks but they have been set exparte.
If said lands are classified as Meikal Poramboke (grazing land) and
Odai (waterbody), officials of the State will do well to defend such suits
diligently obviously on their own merits and in accordance with law
rather than allowing the matters to go exparte.
7. The sum sequitur of the narrative, discussion and dispositive
reasoning (as already alluded to supra) is, captioned main WP fails in
the Admission Board and the same is dismissed. Consequently,
captioned writ miscellaneous petition (WMP) thereat is also dismissed.
Considering the manner in which the submissions were made in the
Admission Board, we refrain from imposing costs.
(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
24.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Medavakkam Division,
Thambaram Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.SUNDAR, J.,
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
mmi
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
