C.Sivanandam v. The District Collector

ORDER [made by M. SUNDAR, J.] Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari assailing a notice/order dated 14.10.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1/2022 issued by R4 (The Executive Officer, Kannampalayam Town Panchayat, Coimbatore 641 402). Page Nos.2/8

¶2Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, submits that there is a report of Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court and he has raised multiple grounds in the writ affidavit. However, notwithstanding myriad grounds raised in the writ affidavit and the trajectory the matter has taken thus far, we find that R4 does not have competence to issue the impugned notice/order. Powers under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' (for brevity 'said 1905 Act') are vested in: i. Collector; ii. Tahsildar subject to control of Collector; iii. Deputy Tahsildar subject to control of Collector; and iv. Authorized officer being any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, i.e., 'authorised officer' subject to the control of the Collector.

¶3There is no disputation before this Court that R4 is not an 'authorised officer' within the meaning of Section 6 of said 1905 Act. Therefore, we interfere with the impugned notice/order on the jurisdiction point. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in writing that the impugned notice/order deserves to be dislodged. Page Nos.3/8

¶4Be that as it may, the impugned notice/order was preceded by a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act being notice dated 23.09.2022 bearing Na.Ka.No.1/2022 and the same has also been issued by R4.

¶5A careful perusal of the language in which Section 7 of said 1905 Act is couched, makes it clear that a notice under Section 7 can be issued only by 6 categories of authorities and they are: i. Collector; ii. Tahsildar; iii. Deputy Tahsildar; iv. Revenue Inspector; v. Authorized officer; and vi. Specified Officer other than authorized officer.

¶6There is no disputation before us that R4 is neither an 'authorised officer' nor a 'specified officer' within the meaning of Section 7 of said 1905 Act. Therefore, Section 7 notice preceding the impugned notice /order also deserves to be dislodged. Page Nos.4/8

¶7Therefore, we quash the impugned notice / order and exercising our powers vide residuary limb of the prayer i.e., 'any other or further orders', we quash the notice preceding the same, i.e., Section 7 notice dated 23.09.2022.

¶8We make it clear that all questions raised by the writ petitioner in the writ support affidavit are left open for being raised by the writ petitioner if a notice is issued afresh or any other proceedings are commenced. Likewise, we also make it clear that Advocate Commissioner's reports filed in the instant case can be pressed into service when such a scenario unfurls and/or any other subsequent proceedings, if that be so.

¶9As regards the Advocate Commissioner, learned Advocate Commissioner, Mr. B. Balaji, is present in Court and along with a final report, he has filed a memo dated 03.04.2023.

¶10Considering the nature of the work and the time spent, with the consent of the learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, we order a further sum of Rs.30,000/- as 'final Page Nos.5/8 remuneration' which shall be paid by the learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner to the learned Advocate Commissioner within a period of three weeks from today i.e., on or before 16.04.2025.

¶11Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP is allowed, a writ of certiorari is issued, impugned notice/order is set aside and the notice preceding the same is also set aside. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat is disposed of as closed the same having become otiose. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.)

26.03.2025 cad Index : NC : Page Nos.6/8 To:

¶1The District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 641 018

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer Sulur Taluk Coimbatore District 641 402

¶3The Tahsildar Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District 641 402

¶4The Executive Officer Kannampalayam Town Panchayat Coimbatore 641 402

¶5The Inspector of Police Sulur Police Station Sulur, Coimbatore District

¶6Pushpalatha Rajagopal President Kannampalayam Town Panchayat Coimbatore District 641 402

¶7K.N. Shanmugam Vice President Kannampalayam Town Panchayat Coimbatore District 641 402 Page Nos.7/8 W.P.,No.27887,of,2022 M.SUNDAR,(J. and K.(GOVINDARAJAN(THILAKAVADI,(J. cad W.P.,No.27887,of,2022

26.03.2025 PageoNos.8/8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.No.27887 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.27176 of 2022 C. Sivanandam Petitioner vs. 1. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore 641 018 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Sulur Taluk Coimbatore District 641 402 3. The Tahsildar Sulur Taluk Coimbatore District 641 402 4. The Executive Officer Kannampalayam Town Panchayat Coimbatore 641 402 5. The Inspector of Police Sulur Police Station Sulur Coimbatore District 6. Pushpalatha Rajagopal President Kannampalayam Town Panchayat Coimbatore District 641 402 Page Nos.1/8 7. K.N. Shanmugam Vice President Kannampalayam Town Panchayat Coimbatore District 641 402 Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/2022 dated 14.10.2022 under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and to quash the same. For petitioner Mr. G. Sankaran, Sr. Counsel for Mr. J. Jayamalan For respondents Mr. T.K. Saravanan Additional Government Pleader Adv. Commr. Mr. B. Balaji