Eviction proceedings by urban local bodies must be initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

The Petitioner, Ramiah, filed W.P. No. 11306 of 2023 to challenge a notice dated 06.04.2023 issued under the Hosur Corporation Act, 2019.

Simultaneously, in W.P. No. 11202 of 2025, the petitioner challenged an order dated 27.10.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Hosur.

The dispute arose following the rejection of the petitioner’s application for the grant of patta, which subsequently led the respondent Corporation to initiate enforcement actions for the removal of alleged encroachments.

1. Whether eviction and enforcement proceedings initiated under the Hosur Corporation Act, 2019 are valid in light of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

2. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner can be sustained as a show-cause notice to facilitate a summary inquiry into the alleged encroachments.

The Court primarily applied the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, which mandates that all eviction proceedings within relevant local jurisdictions must be initiated under this specific Act.

The Court established the principle that notices issued under older or alternative municipal acts (such as the Hosur Corporation Act, 2019) should be treated as show-cause notices under the 1998 Act to ensure procedural fairness and statutory compliance.

The Court observed that with the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, the procedural framework for eviction proceedings was consolidated under that statute.

Consequently, the Court found that the notice issued under the Hosur Corporation Act, 2019, while technically mislabeled, should not be quashed outright but rather treated as a show-cause notice issued under the 1998 Act.

This interpretation was intended to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit an explanation and supporting documents to defend against the enforcement action.

The Court further noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner’s patta application had already been rejected, which justified the initiation of enforcement measures.

By directing the petitioner to respond within a specific timeframe, the Court ensured that the principles of natural justice were satisfied before the respondent proceeded with the actual removal of encroachments under the relevant sections of the 1998 Act.

The Court held that the impugned notice is to be treated as a show-cause notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to submit an explanation within two weeks of receiving the order.

The Respondents were directed to consider such explanation, pass appropriate orders, and proceed with enforcement actions only if encroachments are definitively identified.

No costs were awarded.