IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24 - 8 - 2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal No. 3094 of 2003 and W.A.M.P.No. 4912 of 2003 Jeppiaar Educational Trust Rep. by its Managing Trustee, Jeppiaar 12 Ganapathy Street Royapettah Chennai – 14 .. Appellant vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai 2. The Commissioner for Land Administration Chepauk Chennai - 600 005. 3. The District Collector Kancheepuram District at Kancheepuram. 4. The District Revenue Officer Collector's Office Kancheepuram District at Kancheepuram 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpet Division, Chengalpattu 6. The Tahsildar Tambaram Taluk Tambaram Kancheepuram District ... Respondents Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.9.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 25022 of 2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Writ Petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the proceedings No.28225/NiMu.2-1/2000-6 dated 6.5.2003 of the Ist Respondent and the commission dated 24.8.2003 of the 6th Respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently direct the Ist Respondent to transfer either the entire lands or minimm extent of Lands comprised in Survey No.399, 400, 402, 403 404/1,405, 406, 412/2, 413 etc., at Semmanchery Village at Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District to the petitioner on such terms and conditions. For appellant : Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Manikandan For Respondents : Mr. S.T.S. Moorthy, Spl. GP JUDGMENT (Delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) The writ appeal is preferred by the Jeppiaar Educational Trust against the order dated 08.9.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 25022 of 2003 wherein and by which the writ petition filed by the Trust seeking to quash the proceedings dated 06.5.2003 passed by the first respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 24.8.2003, was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- The appellant is a trust running educational institutions. The petitioner trust in order to streamline the drainage system, was constrained to make use of the adjacent poramboke lands for establishing a temporary drainage and effluent treatment system and the appellant is in possession of the same for the past several years. While so, the appellant had submitted an application dated 12.11.1996 to the respondents for transfer of the aforesaid poramboke lands either by way of long term lease or by outright purchase. The request of the appellant's Trust to transfer the land for an extent of 91.04 acres in S. No. 405 etc. of Manavari Waste poromboke lands in Semmenjeri Village, Tambaram Taluk in Kancheepuram District in favour of Satyabama Engineering College and St. Joseph Engineering College functioning under the management of the Trust, was rejected by the first respondent vide Government Letter dated 06.5.2003 stating that the said Colleges have encroached an extent of 91.04 acres in S. Nos. 405, etc, in Semmenjeri Vilage by way of playground, Under Ground Water Tank, Pipeline, hutments and barbed wire fencing, etc. and allotting of the above encroached land by way of regularization by means of land Transfer / Lease are against the Rules. It was further stated that the above lands would require for the future Government purposes. Thereafter, as per the order of the District Collector dated 06.5.2003, in G.O.Ms.No.199, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act by issuing Notice under Section 6 of the Act to vacate the land and to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remove therefrom any crop or other produce raised by it or any building or other construction erected or anything deposited within seven days from the date of service of the notice failing which they will be summarily evicted from the land. The said orders were impugned in the Writ Petition. 3. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that it is for the respondents to pass orders under Section 6 of the Act taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant. The learned single Judge also directed the respondents not to evict the petitioner till a fresh order is passed under Section 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Trust has come forward with the present writ appeal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the authorities have inspected the subject matter of the lands on various occasions and inspite of the independent conclusion given by them that the lands cannot be put into use effectively by the Government, the impugned orders have been passed. He further contended that though the respondents have stated that the subject matter of the land is very much needed for the Government, they have not come forward with any proposal till date. Ultimately, he submitted that the Appellant Trust intends to hand over part of the land to the State and give offer to purchase the rest part of the land from the State. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader reiterated his stand taken in the counter affidavit by stating that the appellant has no locus standi to express his willingness to surrender the Government poramboke lands. He further submitted that the property is situated in a nearby fast industrial developing areas of Sholinganallur, the OMR Road and the boundary of the proposed expansion of Chennai Corporation and the appellant cannot be permitted to use the said land, which approximately worth of Rs.1800/- Crores, on exchange or for outright sale. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute that the land on which the appellant has put up superstructures, etc., is a poramboke land of which the State is the owner. The request of the appellant for transfer of lands by way of long term lease or outright purchase was rejected by the State on the ground that the said land is required by the Government for public use and subsequently initiated action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The learned single Judge accepting the contentions of the State, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the eviction proceedings initiated under the Act. It seems that while admitting the Writ Appeal, an interim injunction was granted in WAMP. No. 4912 of 2003, on 29.9.2003 and, therefore, no further action could be taken by the Government in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matter. 8. From the various orders passed by this Court in this matter, it is seen that though the Trust had intended to get the land on exchange, or a long term lease or on outright purchase, no fruitful result has been achieved for the past eight years. 9. In order to give a quietus to the matter, we have gone through the various documents as well as the averments pleaded by both the parties, including the impugned order of eviction issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is seen that Section 6 notice had been issued by 6th respondent on 24.8.2003 for eviction of the appellant. While Section 6(1) of the Act enables the authority to issue notice to the person in unauthorised occupation for summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc., Section 6(2) lays down the manner in which eviction under Section 6(1) has to be made and it is extracted hereunder :- "6(2): An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner namely:- By serving a notice in the manner provided in section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the Collector or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and, if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Collector or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person ..." 10. Learned Special Government Pleader is not in a position to produce any record to show that prior notice to person in occupation as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act had been issued to the appellant before issuance of eviction order under Section 6 of the Act. Before issuance of mandatory notice under Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have proceeded to issue Section 6 eviction notice, which is not contemplated under the Act. Though we are upholding the order of the learned single Judge with regard to rejection of the request of the appellant for enjoyment of the land, in view of the aforesaid discrepancy found in the impugned notice of eviction, we dispose of the writ appeal in the following manner:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) the impugned eviction notice dated 24.8.2003 issued under Section 6 of the Act shall be treated as show cause notice as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act; (ii) the appellant shall submit its explanation to the aforesaid notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; (iii) the respondents shall pass appropriate orders thereafter within a period of four weeks in accordance with law; (iv) if, for any reason, the appellant fails to submit its explanation, it is open to the respondents to proceed further in the matter as contemplated under the Act; (v) if any adverse order is passed against the interest of the appellant, it is for them to assail the correctness of the same by filing an appeal under Section 10 of the Act; and (iv) the interim injunction granted on 29.9.2003 in WAMP.No.4912 of 2003 shall stand vacated. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar //True Copy// Sub.Asst.Registrar gri To 1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai 2. The Commissioner for Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai 3. The District Collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 4. The District Revenue Officer Collector's Office Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer Chengalpet Division Chengalpet https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The Tahsildar Tambaram Taluk Tambaram Kancheepuram District. 1 cc To Government Pleader, SR.No.52896 W.A. No. 3094 of 2003 rs(co) pmk.15.9.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/