S XAVIER Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to be agriculturists, each of them cultivating an extent of 0.39.5 ares of land comprised in Survey No. 135/1, Karkalathur Village, Sivagangai District. Both the writ Petitioners claim that their ancestors were cultivating the above said lands without any interruption. They have received 'B' Memos and they also paid the amounts therein, accordingly. According to the Petitioners, their lands are irrigated by the adjacent Chinnakaraiyan, Periyakaraiyan Kanmai. The kanmai was damaged during the year 1957 and during the settlement survey, it was wrongly classified as "Punja Land". They gave representation to the Government to reclassify it as Nanja land but till date no action has been taken by the 1st Respondent. In 1971, a dispute arose between the farmers of the Petitioners' village and the farmers of the adjacent Marudavayal Village. A suit was filed in O.S. No. 480/1971 to restrain the farmers of the Petitioners' village from intercepting the water that flows through the disputed land. The trial court decreed the suit, against which an appeal was filed by the ryots of the Petitioner's village. The appeal was allowed. According to the Petitioners, in the appeal, the appellate judge has given a finding that there is no Odai in Survey No. 135/1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that one of the Defendants in the suit is the father of the Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1136/2010.

(2.) Thereafter, on 28.08.2009, a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short "the Act") was issued. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the notice does not specify to which authority the explanation to the show cause notice should be submitted and therefore they could not submit their explanations and consequently notice under Section 6 was also issued directing eviction and classifying the land as 'Odai Poramboke'.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the actual classification of the land has not been taken note of by the Respondents and further, because Section 7 notice did not specify to whom the explanation has to be given, they have been denied the right of making their submissions to protect their possession.