A writ challenge to a Section 6 order is unsustainable when a statutory appeal is pending.

The petitions challenged proceedings dated 13 August 2026 issued by the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

The connected petitions sought to quash those proceedings; the lead petition also sought removal of alleged encroachments and illegal stone-crushing activities on Government poromboke land in Survey No. 144/1, Pammal Village.

The State submitted that the Section 6 order was appealable, that the petitioners had already appealed to the District Collector, and that the appeals were pending with a hearing fixed for 15 October 2026.

1. Whether the petitioners could maintain writ petitions challenging the Tahsildar’s Section 6 proceedings when they had already appealed to the District Collector.

2. Whether the pending appeals should be considered by the appellate authority, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all grounds.

The proceedings were issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

The Court treated an order under Section 6 as appealable and held that, in the circumstances—particularly because the petitioners had already invoked the appellate remedy—the writ challenge was not sustainable.

The Court noted that the petitioners had an appellate remedy and had already filed appeals before the District Collector, where a hearing had been scheduled.

In light of that pending remedy, it declined to entertain the writ challenges and instead left the petitioners to raise all their grounds in the appeal.

It directed the appellate authority to consider the appeals and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within two weeks from 15 October 2026.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.