1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 01..07..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Petition (MD)No.7203 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 O. Selvaraj, S/o. Uyyappan, Udanpatti, S.Sivalpatti Post, Sivagangai District. ..... Petitioner - Vs - 1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2. The Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 3. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 5. The Tahsildhar, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 6. The Revenue Inspector, S.S.Kottai, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 7. M. Mookaiah, S/o. Muthiah, Sokkalampatti, S. Sivalpatti Post, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. ......Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned eviction notice dated 15.06.2011 issued by the respondent No.6 under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to grant Patta to the petitioner in Natham Survey No.250/11 an extent of .2 ares situated at Erumaipatti Group, Udanpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner :: Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy For Respondents:: Mr. K. Mahendran for R-1 to R-6 Special Government Pleader - - - - - - - O R D E R (Order of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the Notice under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and for a direction to the respondents to grant Patta to the petitioner to Natham Survey No.250/11 an extent of .2 ares situated at Erumaipatti Group, Udanpatti Village, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, already the petitioner had applied for issue of patta to the land in question. Though the authority has rejected the request, District Revenue Officer had remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar to re-consider the same. Under such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issuance of notice under section 5 of the Act to evict the petitioner from the land in question is prima facie illegal. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel, the impugned notice has been passed basing on the order of the Tahsildar dated 15.06.2011. As per the said order, this Court has passed an order in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2011 dated 24.03.2011 to remove the encroachment in S.No.250/11,250/39 at Erumaipatty Group, S.S.Kottai Firka Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is not a party to the said writ petition. Basing on this, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that only a show cause notice has been issued and not an order of eviction. Apart from this, according to him, before resorting to Section 7 and 6 of the Act, Notice under Section 5 of the Act has to be issued and the petitioner can bring to the notice of the concerned authorities all these facts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. A perusal of the impugned notice reveals that it is a show cause notice. It is also true that the same has been issued basing on the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 15.06.2011 wherein it is stated that this Court has passed an order in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2011 dated 24.03.2011 to remove the encroachment in S.No.250/11,250/39 at Erumaipatty Group, S.S.Kottai Firka Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. However, on a perusal of the order dated 24.03.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.2926 of 2011, it is clear that what is passed is only a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass suitable orders on the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2010 in accordance with law, following the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules and after affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 6. Under the above said circumstances and also taking notice of the fact that what is issued is only a show cause notice, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit his reply to the impugned notice by setting out all the facts, bringing to the notice of the concerned authorities. The fifth respondent / Tahsildar is also directed that while passing orders, he shall take into account the order dated 05.02.2009. Till final orders are passed, the respondents are restrained from taking any further action basing on the impugned order. 7. With the said observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To: 1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2. The Sub Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 3. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. 5. The Tahsildhar, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. 6. The Revenue Inspector, S.S.Kottai, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District +One CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.21433 +One CC to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.21331 Dpn rl/9c – 2.8.2011 W.P.(MD)No.7203 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/