Madras High Court
C.V.S. Industries vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 September, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
2025:MHC:2172
W.P.No.33017 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P. No.33017 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.37047 of 2025
C.V.S. Industries
Sole Proprietor S. Latha
No.12A/1, Kandhampalayam
Perundurai Village and Taluk
Erode District 638 052 Petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Commissioner of Land Reforms
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2. The District Collector
Tiruppur District
Palladam Road
Tiruppur 641 604
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Palladam Taluk Office
Pollachi
Udumalpet Road
Palladam 641 664
4. The Tahsildar
Palladam
Palladam Taluk Office
Pollachi – Udumalpet Road
Palladam 641 664
Page No.1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
W.P.No.33017 of 2025
5. The Land Revenue Inspector
Karadivavi Circle
Palladam
Tiruppur District
6. The Village Administrative Officer
Karadivavi
Palladam Taluk
Tiruppur District Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records in the eviction notice dated 25.07.2025 issued by the fourth
respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,
1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905) and quash the same as illegal and
consequently, forbear the respondents from interfering with the
enjoyment and peaceful possession the petitioner's property in Survey
Nos.119 and 120/2 totally to an extent of 1.18 ½ acres in Anupatti
Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, in any manner whatsoever.
For petitioner Mr. Sricharan Rangarajan
Senior Counsel
for Mr. N.S. Amogh Simha
For respondents Mr. T.K. Saravanan
Addl. Govt. Pleader
-----
Page No.2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
W.P.No.33017 of 2025
ORDER
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Subject matter of captioned main 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] is lands comprised in two survey numbers, viz., S.No.119/1 admeasuring 2.11 acres [hereinafter 'said first parcel of land' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and S.No.120/2B admeasuring 2.11 acres [hereinafter 'said second parcel of land' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, first and second parcels of land shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'said lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
2. Writ petitioner was visited with a 'show cause notice' (SCN) dated 06.06.2025 under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'the said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] by fifth respondent (Land Revenue Inspector) alleging encroachment to a total extent of 1.88 acres (0.63 acre in first parcel of land and 1.25 acres in second parcel of land). Writ petitioner sent a reply (showed cause) vide a detailed representation dated 19.06.2025. Thereafter, fourth respondent (Tahsildar) made an order dated 25.07.2025 under Section Page No.3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 6 of said 1905 Act [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Assailing the impugned order, captioned main WP has been filed.
3. Mr. Sricharan Rangarajan, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. N.S. Amogh Simha, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, submits that the Section 6 order has been made by fourth respondent (a) without considering the writ petitioner's response to SCN being response dated 19.06.2025 and (b) the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2024 made in S.A. No.700 of 2017 vide R. Vijayamohan and 3 others vs. Srilatha by a Single Bench of this Court [hereinafter 'Vijayamohan case' for the sake of convenience and clarity] will come in the way and writ petitioner is not a party to Vijayamohnan case.
4. Issue notice to respondents.
5. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all six respondents and submits that the impugned order is an appealable order. Learned State counsel also Page No.4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any error which warrants interference in writ jurisdiction.
6. Owing to the limited scope of the captioned main WP, captioned main WP was taken up in the Admission Board itself with the consent of learned counsel for writ petitioner and learned State counsel.
7. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that the impugned order is an appealable order as writ petitioner has a right of filing a statutory appeal (to be noted, appellate authority is second respondent under Section 10 of said 1905 Act). There is also a provision for writ petitioner to seek stay of further proceedings, pending appeal, vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act.
8. The short point is, whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised notwithstanding the aforementioned alternative remedy. This Court is of the considered view that the answer is in the negative for the reasons assigned infra.
Page No.5/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 i. It is nobody's case that the alternative remedy is either inefficacious or ineffective;
ii. This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self-contained Code and this Court has done so by respectfully following Girnar principle, i.e., declaration of law made by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1;
iii. As regards first parcel of land, another noticee, viz., Ariya Plastics, came to this Court by way of W.P.No.23373 of 2025 inter alia assailing a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act and this Court dismissed the Ariya Plastics writ petition in and by order dated 01.07.2025 reported in 2025:MHC:1625 which reads as follows:
'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Page No.6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 W.P.No.23373 of 2025 and W.M.P. No.26253 of 2025 in W.P. No.23373 of 2025 M/s.Ariya Plastics rep. By its Managing Partner M.P.A.Mahalingam, SIPCOT Plot No.J1, North, Perundurai Village and Taluk, Erode District. ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector, Tiruppur District.
3.The Land Revenue Inspector, Karadivavi Circle, Palladam, Tiruppur District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer, Karadivavi Circle, Palladam, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in proceedings Nil dated 06.06.2025 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the respondents, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the property in Survey Nos.119/1, 119/2A and 119/2B situated at Anupatti Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
Owing to there being no representation yesterday (30.06.2025), captioned matter is listed under the cause list caption 'FOR DISMISSAL' today.
Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner expresses regret for missing the matter yesterday (30.06.2025) and tenders an apology. We accept the apology. Cause list caption 'FOR DISMISSAL' is deleted and the captioned matter is taken up in the Admission Board.
Page No.7/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025
2. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that 'lands comprised in Survey Nos.119/1, 119/2A and 119/2B in Anupatti Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District' (hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity) is subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) and the captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' (hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity) thereat; that according to writ petitioner, it purchased lands admeasuring 1.185 acres or thereabouts in Survey Nos.118 and 119 vide sale deed dated 09.09.2005 registered as Document No.5803 of 2005 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Palladam (to be noted, writ petitioner's vendor is one Ms.Srilatha); that thereafter Ms.Srilatha filed a suit in O.S.No.300 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruppur (suit inter-alia for declaration of title and permanent injunction) and this suit pertains to an extent of 10.57 acres of land in S. Nos.98/2, 119/1, 120/1 and 120/2; that in this suit, Mr.R.Vijayamohan and three others were defendants; that pending suit, the 'Commissioner of Land Administration' (CLA) made an order dated 19.11.2010 inter-alia rejecting patta; that this order of CLA was assailed by Ms.Srilatha vide W.P.No.27805 of 2010, defendants in the suit and others viz., Mr.R.Vijayamohan and others filed W.P.No.28586 of 2010 with a prayer to implement the CLA order dated 09.11.2010 inter-alia by removing the wind mills and other alleged encroachments; that pending WPs, suit in O.S.No.300 of 2008 came to be decreed on 07.04.2011 (after full contest); that defendants in the suit carried the matter in appeal vide A.S.No.87 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur; that this appeal being a regular first appeal under Section 96 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908)' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2016; that the defendants carried the matter further to this Court by way of a second appeal (under Section 100 of CPC) vide S.A.No.700 of 2017; that pending second appeal, aforementioned writ petitions being W.P.No.27805 of 2010 and W.P.No.28586 of 2010 filed by Ms.Srilatha and Mr.R.Vijayamohan and others respectively came to be disposed of by a common order dated 29.08.2019 made by a Hon'ble Single Judge (closing writ petitions on the ground that outcome in S.A.No.700 of 2017 should not be impacted and that the second appeal Court will take a call in this regard); that thereafter the second appeal came to be disposed of (allowed) by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in and by judgment dated 12.11.2024; that this means that Ms.Srilatha/plaintiff in O.S.No.300 of 2008 stood non-suited; that in the judgment in second appeal, another Hon'ble Single Judge had made it clear that removal of windmills and other encroachments pursuant to CLA order has come within remit of second appeal owing to Writ Court orders and a directive was given to remove the encroachments; that it is to be noted that vide second appeal judgment, Hon'ble Single Judge has returned a categoric finding that neither Ms.Srilatha nor her Page No.8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 predecessors had valid title qua suit properties; that thereafter 'R3 issued a notice dated 06.06.2025' (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity) 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}; that assailing the impugned notice of R3 and seeking a prohibitory mandamus qua official respondents as regards interference with writ petitioner's possession of said lands, captioned main WP has been filed.
3. Notwithstanding myriad grounds and averments in the writ affidavit, Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned notice on the short point that the Civil Court decree does not bind the writ petitioner.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepted notice for all four respondents and submitted that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice (having been issued under Section 7 of said 1905 Act) and that it makes it clear that writ petitioner is in occupation, possession and enjoyment of said lands without permission, in contravention of The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961) and The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965.
6. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and in the light of short point on which the writ petitioner's campaign against the impugned notice is predicated, finds that captioned WP is vastly de-scoped and therefore with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, captioned main WP is taken up.
7. At the outset, we find that in paragraph 3 of the writ affidavit, there is a categoric averment that ever since purchase by writ petitioner (purchased vide sale deed dated 09.09.2005 registered as Document No.5803 of 2005 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Palladam by the writ petitioner from Ms.Srilatha), writ petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property with mutation of revenue records including patta. This Court wanted to see the patta but the same has neither been enclosed in the typed set of papers nor been produced in the hearing.
8. The argument that the Civil Court decree does not bind the writ petitioner does not come to the aid of the writ petitioner in its campaign against the impugned order for two reasons and they are (a) impugned notice was not predicated solely on the Civil Court decree (to be noted as already alluded to supra, it also categorically avers that the writ petitioner is in possession and Page No.9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 enjoyment of the said lands in contravention of The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 (without permission) and (b) the impugned notice is only a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and none of the exceptions for interference in a SCN in a writ jurisdiction are attracted.
9. In this regard, before proceeding further, it is deemed appropriate to write that this Court, in C.Gopinathan case reported in 2025:MHC:1162 (order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.8355 and 8357 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos.8324 and 8237 of 2022 thereat), respectfully following Girnar principle, i.e., declaration of law made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. Girnar principle is that if a statute provides for a complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by that law and its dependence on other legislations is either absent or minimal, such a statute is a self contained Code.
10. The ecosystem of said 1905 Act, i.e., the purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act is to lay down procedure for eviction of encroachment of lands belonging to the Government. As regards said 1905 Act, inter alia, there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order under section 6 (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable. Section 10 is the appeal provision and inter-alia District Collector is the appellate authority and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. This order of Revisional Authority is obviously subject to judicial review. This is the legal architecture of the machinery put in place to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act. Such a three-tier machinery has been put in place to check unauthorised occupation of lands which are the properties of the Government (besides imposition of penal or prohibitory assessment or charge), after giving adequate and ample opportunity to a person who is alleged to be in occupation of public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, tanks and such other properties of Government.
11. The purpose sought to be achieved by said 1905 Act and the architecture of the machinery put in place to achieve the same when tested on the touchstone of Girnar principle leaves us with the view that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code which provides for complete machinery to deal with the purpose sought to be achieved with no dependence on other legislations or at the highest minimal dependence on other legislations. Suffice to say that said 1905 Act is clearly a self-contained Code.
Page No.10/20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025
12.It is always open to the writ petitioner to respond to the impugned notice which is only a SCN by raising all points including the aforereferred point and other points raised in the captioned WP. The same will obviously have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law by the revenue authorities and an order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act has to be made. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to add that Section 14 of said 1905 Act is of relevance as civil Court cannot be resorted to for issuing notice under said 1905 Act or for any injunctive reliefs qua proceedings under said 1905 Act. To be noted, section 14 of said 1905 Act reads as follows:
'14.Bar of jurisdiction of Courts.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no order passed or proceeding taken by any officer or authority or the State Government under this Act shall be called in question in any Court, in any suit or application and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority or the State Government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.'
13. We preserve all the rights and contentions of writ petitioner including the contentions raised in the captioned WP while responding to the impugned notice and add that the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law by revenue authorities untrammelled by this order.
14. The impugned notice which is clearly a SCN called upon the writ petitioner to respond by 20.06.2025 (to be noted, there is an error in the English translation and the English translation says 20th July, 2025). Be that as it may, the captioned WP has been filed in this Court on 20.06.2025. As regards Section 7 of said 1905 Act, it merely says that noticee should be called upon to show cause before a certain date without prescribing the period of notice. Though there is a rule making power vide Section 8 of said 1905 Act which inter-alia provides for the State Government to make rules regulating the service of notices as well as particulars to be contained in notices under Section 7 of said 1905 Act, no rules have been made until today. In this view of the matter, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into account the multiple collateral proceedings including the second appeal judgment of this Court, we deem it appropriate to write that writ petitioner shall now show cause/respond to the impugned notice within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 15.07.2025.
15. We deem it appropriate to capture the position qua instant case that there is no disputation that none of the conditions for interference in SCN in writ Page No.11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 jurisdiction exist and that alternate remedy is not inefficacious. Be that as it may being acutely conscious that alternate remedy Rule is a Rule of discretion and not an absolute Rule we relegate writ petitioner to alternate remedy.
15. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned WP fails and the same is dismissed albeit with observations and preservation of rights in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned WMP threat perishes with the captioned main WP i.e., captioned WMP is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.)
01.07.2025
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
mmi'
iv. Learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of
this Court in Tamilselvi vs. The Commissioner,
Sholinghur Municipality and another [W.P.No.8215 of 2025 decided on 17.03.2025] in which one of us [M. SUNDAR, J.] was a member. To be noted, this decision shall hereinafter be referred to as Tamilselvi case. In Tamilselvi case, Thummala Krishna Rao case law [Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134] and Padmavati Devi case law [State of Rajasthan vs. Padmavati Devi and others reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 290], were held to be different on facts by applying Padma Sundara Rao case [Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in Page No.12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 (2002) 3 SCC 533]. To be noted, Tamilselvi case is one which was dismissed by this Court in and by order dated 17.03.2025. Tamilselvi case was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (C) No.10245 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in and by order dated 02.05.2025. A scanned reproduction of the said order is as follows:
Therefore, suffice to say that Tamilselvi case does not come to the aid of the writ petitioner as the argument predicated on Section 2(1)(e) of said 1905 Act is also one Page No.13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 that can be raised before the Appellate Authority.
v. As regards the apprehension of the writ petitioner that Vijayamohan case will come in the way, we find that Vijayamohan case has been carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court by the sole respondent in the second appeal (Srilatha) vide S.L.P. (C) No.14148 of 20205 and Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition vide order dated 23.05.2025 and a scanned reproduction of the said order is as follows:Page No.14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 vi. We respectfully write that in the light of dismissal of the special leave petition and in the light of there being no intra-Court appeal against a second appeal, if Vijayamohan case comes in the way, this Court also cannot interfere qua Vijayamohan case. If any other remedy is available to the writ petitioner as regards Vijayamohan case i.e., by way of review, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner shall stand preserved untrammelled by instant order.
9. This Court, having set out the reasons for not exercising writ jurisdiction, it is made clear that this Court is acutely conscious that alternative remedy rule is not an absolute rule and it is only a rule of discretion.
10. In the case on hand, whether there was assignment, whether there was any resumption, are all matters which turn heavily Page No.15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 on facts and it can be more appropriately and more conveniently raised before the Appellate Authority who will have the benefit of perusing the records. It is always open to the Appellate Authority to remand the matter to the Original Authority, if the Appellate Authority is not satisfied with the manner in which the Original Authority has dealt with the matter. We hasten to add that we are not expressing any view or opinion on the merits of the matter as we relegate the writ petitioner to alternative remedy.
11. As regards alternative remedy, we are informed that the impugned order of fourth respondent was served on the writ petitioner on 30.07.2025. In and vide sub-section (1) of Section 11 of said 1905 Act, writ petitioner has 30 days time to file an appeal but in the interregnum, writ petitioner filed the captioned WP on 22.08.2025 i.e., before 30 days elapsed. We exclude the time spent by writ petitioner in the captioned WP by resorting to the underpinning principle qua Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Page No.16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025
12. Under the normal circumstances, we would have held that the writ petitioner has 8 days time to file an appeal but considering the facts and circumstances of the case (making it clear that this order is not a precedent as the writ petitioner may have to resort to review qua Vijayamohan case), we deem it appropriate to write that writ petitioner will have 30 days time from today i.e., time upto 30.09.2025, to file statutory appeal. It is open to the writ petitioner to file statutory appeal along with stay petition thereat under Section 10- B of said 1905 Act. This means that in the light of sub-section (1) of Section 11, there will be no coercive action until 30.09.2025 and if the writ petitioner files statutory appeal along with a Section 10-B petition, coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be subject to and depending on the outcome of Section 10-B petition. The statutory appeal and stay petition thereat shall be considered on their own merits and in accordance with law, untrammelled by instant order.
13. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned main WP is dismissed, albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of the writ petitioner in the aforesaid manner. As regards coercive action, in the light of Page No.17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm ) W.P.No.33017 of 2025 what we have written i.e., 30 days time to file statutory appeal and coercive action being subject to and depending upon outcome of Section 10-B petition, the anxiety of the writ petitioner stands doused, captioned writ miscellaneous petition has become otiose and the same is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (M.S.K.,J.)
01.09.2025
cad
Indes : Yes/No
N.C. : Yes
Page No.18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
W.P.No.33017 of 2025
To
1. The Commissioner of Land Reforms
State of Tamil Nadu
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005
2. The District Collector
Tiruppur District
Palladam Road
Tiruppur 641 604
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Palladam Taluk Office
Pollachi
Udumalpet Road
Palladam 641 664
4. The Tahsildar
Palladam
Palladam Taluk Office
Pollachi – Udumalpet Road
Palladam 641 664
5. The Land Revenue Inspector
Karadivavi Circle
Palladam
Tiruppur District
6. The Village Administrative Officer
Karadivavi
Palladam Taluk
Tiruppur District
Page No.19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )
W.P.No.33017 of 2025
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
cad
W.P.No.33017 of 2025
01.09.2025
Page No.20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 05:35:58 pm )