Madras High Court
M/S.Ariya Plastics Rep. By Its vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 1 July, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
2025:MHC:1625
W.P.No.23373 of 2025
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
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
Page Nos.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm )
W.P.No.23373 of 2025
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.
2. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that 'lands comprised in Page Nos.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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 Page Nos.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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- Page Nos.4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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 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. Page Nos.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025
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.
Page Nos.6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025
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 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. Page Nos.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025
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 Page Nos.8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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 Page Nos.9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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.
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 Page Nos.10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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 Page Nos.11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm ) W.P.No.23373 of 2025 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 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
Page Nos.12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm )
W.P.No.23373 of 2025
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
mmi
To
1.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.
M.SUNDAR, J.,
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mmi
W.P.No.23373 of 2025
Page Nos.13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm )
W.P.No.23373 of 2025
01.07.2025
Page Nos.14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:19:04 pm )