Encroacher cannot claim exchange of government land as an absolute right.

The petitioner, an occupier of government land in Kanjanaicken Patti Village, Salem District, challenged an order dated 15.08.2024 issued by the Tahsildar (Respondent 3) which rejected her proposal for an exchange of land.

The revenue authorities had identified encroachments on government land and evicted all other encroachers; however, the petitioner sought to offer her private patta land in S.No. 34/2 in exchange for the government land she occupied in S.No. 34/13.

The Government argued that the encroached land is high-value property and maintained that no formal approval for exchange was ever granted.

1. Whether an encroacher can claim the exchange of government land with private land as an absolute right.

2. Whether a recommendation for exchange by a Tahsildar is binding on the Government without formal acceptance by the competent authority.

3. Whether the petitioner is liable for eviction following the rejection of the exchange proposal.

The Court applied the principle that the exchange of government land is not an absolute right of an encroacher but a discretionary power of the Government.

It clarified that the Government is the sole competent authority to accept such proposals, and a mere recommendation by a subordinate official like a Tahsildar does not create a vested legal right.

Furthermore, the Court relied on the procedural requirements for eviction of encroachers as contemplated under the relevant land and revenue laws.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner remains an encroacher because the state government, as the owner of the land, never formally accepted the offer of exchange.

The bench noted the Government's submission that the land in question is valuable, justifying the refusal to entertain the exchange.

The Court emphasized that administrative recommendations do not equate to executive orders; therefore, the petitioner could not secure a writ to compel an exchange.

Since all other similarly situated encroachers had already been evicted, the Court found no legal justification for the petitioner to continue her occupation.

The Court directed the authorities to evict the petitioner from the government land by following due process of law within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.