Madras High Court
Senthil Kumar vs The District Collector on 27 November, 2018
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, R.Tharani
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.THARANI
W.P.(MD)Nos.23497 to 23499 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.21309 to 21313 of 2018
In W.P.(MD) No.23497 of 2018:
Senthil Kumar : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Viruthunagar District,
Viruthunagar.
2.The Executive Officer,
Chettiyarpatti Town Panchayat,
Chettiyarpatti,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Viruthunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Viruthunagar District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for records
relating to the impugned eviction order issued by the third respondent
herein in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4.14483/2017 dated 31.10.2018
and consequently directing the respondent to forbearing from evicting
the petitioner in survey No.405/1 at Chettiyarpatti Village,
Rajapalayam Taluk, Viruthunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
In W.P.(MD) No.23498 of 2018:
Sri Kandan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Viruthunagar District,
Viruthunagar.
2.The Executive Officer,
Chettiyarpatti Town Panchayat,
Chettiyarpatti,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Viruthunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Viruthunagar District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for records
relating to the impugned eviction order issued by the third respondent
herein in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4.14483/2017 dated 31.10.2018
and consequently directing the respondent to forbearing from evicting
the petitioner in survey No.405/1 at Chettiyarpatti Village,
Rajapalayam Taluk, Viruthunagar District.
In W.P.(MD) No.23499 of 2018:
Thangaraja : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Viruthunagar District,Viruthunagar.
2.The Executive Officer,
Chettiyarpatti Town Panchayat,
Chettiyarpatti,Rajapalayam Taluk,
Viruthunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Rajapalayam Taluk,
Viruthunagar District. : Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for records
relating to the impugned eviction order issued by the third respondent
herein in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.A4.14483/2017 dated 31.10.2018
and consequently directing the respondent to forbearing from evicting
the petitioner in survey No.405/1 at Chettiyarpatti Village,
Rajapalayam Taluk, Viruthunagar District.
In three writ petitions:
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subbaraj
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Challenging the impugned eviction notice issued in Na.Ka.No. 14483/2017 dated 31.10.2018 issued by the third respondent, the present writ petitions have been filed.
2.Heard Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Sethuraman, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The petitioners had purchased the land in Survey No.405/1 situated at Chettiyarpatti Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, Viruthunagar http://www.judis.nic.in 4 District by way of sale deeds. The petitioners have applied for approval to the second respondent herein on 04.06.2018, 27.06.2013 and 04.08.2009 respectively. The second respondent has also issued building plan approval. While so, all of a sudden on 31.10.2018, the third respondent has issued the impugned eviction notice. In the impugned eviction notice, it has been stated as follows:
''It seems that the petitioners have encroached the land in Natham Survey No. 405/1, Rajapalayam Circle, Settiyarpatti Village, to the extent of 0.00.95.0 sq. mts without obtaining permission from the community people. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioners shall vacate the land within a period of 15 days. On failure to do so, the petitioners would be vacated and all the crops, building and other materials would also be removed”
4.The grievance of the petitioners is that before issuing the impugned order, no show cause notice was issued to him calling for explanation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (2) CTC 741, [RAMARAJU V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI AND http://www.judis.nic.in 5 OTHERS] wherein in paragraph No.38 it has been held as follows:
“38. It is of course true that in the two counter affidavits, the municipalities have taken the stand, quite expectedly and understandably, that they have no intention to take any step for removal of any encroachment from the road or road margins without following the due procedure of law and they do not have the intention to take steps for eviction of any person from any land not belonging to the municipalities. However, since the news item appearing in the News Papers gives the impression as if Rajapalayam Municipality intended to remove all encroachments pursuant to the order passed by the High Courts in W.P.No. 689 of 2005 and since certain misconceptions have arisen as if the Division Bench has given a blanket direction for removal of encroachment even without following due process of law, the matter is required to be clarified in the following manner :
(1) If the encroachment is on road or road margins, vested in Municipalities, the removal if any is to be effected only after following the procedure contemplated in Chapter IX of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and more particularly the provisions contained in Section 182 and Section 183(6) Before taking action under Section 182 of the District Municipalities Act, notice in writing giving atleast two weeks time should be served and, if the person avoids to receive the notice, such notice can be effected by affixure. However, notice by any other means, such as through public announcement or beating of drums or by general notice in newspapers, may not be sufficient.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 (2) The decision in W.P.No. 689 of 2005 cannot be construed as having abrogated the statutory power of the Council under Sections 182 and 183. The Council may grant licence to put up verandas, balconies, sunshades, weather-frames and the like. Similarly, the Council has power to lease road sides and street margins for occupation on such terms and conditions and for such period as the Council may fix. However, such power under Sections 183(1) and 183(3) should be exercised keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 183(4) and no such licence under Section 183(1) or lease under Section 183(3) should be granted if the projection, construction or occupation is likely to be injurious to health or cause public inconvenience or otherwise materially interfere with the use of the road as such. Any projection or construction put up under Section 183(1) or (2) can be removed on expiry of the licence or the lease, as the case may be. Compensation is required to be paid in matters coming within the scope of 182(2).
(3) Payment of property tax, provisions of water connection or electricity by themselves cannot be construed as conferring any independent right, if the encroachment is otherwise unauthorised. (4) The above directions and observations are also applicable to encroachment in respect of road or road margins coming within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporations or Town and Village Panchayats, in which event, necessary action can be taken by the concerned authorities by following the relevant provisions of law applicable to such Corporations or Panchayats.
(5) To the extent the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 are applicable, action can be taken only by following the procedure prescribed under such statutes. Similarly the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, are http://www.judis.nic.in 7 applicable to the Roads coming under the State Act.
(6) If the encroachment is on the land belonging to the Local Authorities, but such land is not part of the road or road margin or roadside land, eviction can be effected by following the procedure contemplated in law, namely, either by taking recourse to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 or any other law applicable or otherwise by taking recourse to Civil Courts and not by use of unilateral force.
(7) So far as the encroachment on the land belonging to the Government is concerned, action for eviction if any can be taken only by the appropriate authority and by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
(8) The directions issued in W.P.No. 689 of 2005 are applicable to removal of encroachments on roads and road margins and not other lands belonging to the Local Authorities or the State. The said decision should not be construed as giving a licence to the Local Authorities to cancel the existing license or lease or to remove the encroachments without following the procedure contemplated under the law.
(9) If any Civil Courts decree or interim order is holding the field, obviously, no action can be taken, unless and until such a decree or interim order is set aside or vacated in a manner known to law. “
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued that the third respondent has not issued any notice calling for explanation http://www.judis.nic.in 8 from the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6.It is the duty of the third respondent to give notice to the petitioners and hear the petitioners and then pass final orders.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that instead of quashing the impugned eviction dated 31.10.2018, it would be treated as a show cause notice. Accordingly, the impugned notice issued under Section 6 of the Act 3 of the Madras City Act, 1905, is directed to be treated as show cause notice and the petitioners are directed to give their reply to the above said notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the said reply, the third respondent is directed to hold an enquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.
7.Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.P.S., J.] & [R.T., J.]
27.11.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
CM
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
R.SUBBIAH, J
AND
R.THARANI, J
CM
To
1.The District Collector,Viruthunagar District,Viruthunagar.
2.The Executive Officer,Chettiyarpatti Town Panchayat, Chettiyarpatti,Rajapalayam Taluk,Viruthunagar District.
3.The Tahsildar,Rajapalayam Taluk,Viruthunagar District.
Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.23497 to 23499 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.21309 to 21313 of 2018 Dated: 27.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in