MEENAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Since we find that the Tahsildhar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District is a proper and necessary party to the Writ Petition, we suo motu implead the Tahsildhar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District as third respondent in the Writ Petitions. The Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the cause title.

(2.) The petitioners are all encroachers of the Government land and it appears that they have been there for over two decades. The second respondent has issued impugned notices under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioners, on receipt of the notices, have sent a representation to the District Collector on February, 2018. The sum and substance of the objection raised in the representation is that the land in Survey No. 196/1, Thirukostiyur Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District has been classified as kanmai poramboke. The Revenue Inspector, who conducted an inspection of the property in the year 1983, submitted his report, from which, it is seen that the encroachments made by the petitioners/others has nothing to do with the kanmai poramboke and it is adjoining the kanmai poromboke. Further, by taking into consideration the said report, the Tahsildhar, Thiruppathur Taluk has recommended for regularising the encroachments. Though such direction came to be issued on 22.02.1983, nothing happened thereafter and the petitioners have rushed to this Court, when the impugned notices under Section 7 of the Act were issued.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that the impugned proceedings is without jurisdiction for two reasons. Firstly, the Deputy Tahsildhar, who is a lower grade officer to the Tahsildhar, has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notices.