Authorities must follow statutory notice and appeal procedures before evicting land encroachments.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector/Monitoring Committee and the Tahsildar to remove an alleged encroachment by the third respondent, Kannappan, in Survey No.125/33, Thiruvudaiyarpatti, Sivagangai District, based on her representation dated 07.07.2025.

It was alleged that, in 2009, the third respondent’s father, Malaichamy Konar, had encroached upon a pathway and erected a thatched structure, obstructing ingress and egress.

The father had challenged the eviction notice in W.P.(MD) No.13707 of 2009, but that proceeding was dismissed as abated after his death, as his legal representatives were not brought on record.

The alleged encroachment nevertheless continued, leading to the present petition.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Tahsildar conducted a survey on 07.09.2026 and reported that the third respondent had encroached upon land in Survey No.125/33 measuring 0.03.50 hectares.

Though notice was served, the third respondent did not appear before the Court.

1. Whether the respondents should initiate proceedings for removal of the third respondent’s alleged encroachment in Survey No.125/33 under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

2. Whether any such eviction proceedings must comply with the statutory safeguards, including notice under Section 7, an order under Section 6, and the right of appeal under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

Under Section 7, the alleged encroacher must be issued notice before eviction proceedings are pursued; Section 6 authorises the competent authority to pass an eviction order in accordance with the Act; and Section 10 provides an appellate remedy against an order under Section 6.

The Court emphasised that removal of an encroachment must be undertaken through the procedure prescribed by the statute and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tahsildar’s survey confirmed the alleged encroachment by the third respondent in the specified survey field.

On that factual basis, the Court held that the administrative respondents were required to take action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act rather than effecting removal without statutory process.

The Court therefore directed initiation of proceedings, while expressly requiring issuance of notice under Section 7, consideration and passing of any order under Section 6, and preservation of the statutory right of appeal under Section 10.

The third respondent’s failure to appear despite service of notice did not dispense with the mandatory procedure under the Act.

The initial proceedings, including issuance of notice under Section 7, were directed to be initiated on or before 25.09.2026.

No order was made as to costs.