Existence of efficacious alternative remedy bars writ petition against land encroachment proceedings under Section 6.

The litigation involves two interconnected writ petitions concerning alleged encroachments on Government poramboke lands in S.Nos. 573/7 and 574/31 at Vadukachimathil Village

Velladurai (Petitioner in W.P. 20020/2018) sought a Mandamus for the removal of encroachments by Ashok Nambi and his father

Conversely, Ashok Nambi (Petitioner in W.P. 23065/2022) challenged a notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, claiming title through a 2003 sale deed and a 2009 settlement deed

Procedurally, the Tahsildar had already initiated statutory proceedings under Sections 7 and 6 of the Act

Additionally, a civil suit (O.S.No.173 of 2022) regarding the property is pending before the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri

1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a Section 6 notice when an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the statute

2. Whether an ex parte civil decree in a suit where the complainant was not a party confers title over land classified as Government poramboke

3. Whether the court should issue a Mandamus for eviction when the statutory authorities have already initiated proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act

The court primarily applied the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, specifically Section 6 (liability to eviction), Section 7 (prior notice to person in occupation), and Section 10 (statutory appeal process)

It reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for an efficacious alternative remedy provided by statute

Furthermore, it affirmed that land classified as "Government poramboke" is subject to the State’s prerogative for assignment and cannot be claimed via private title without such assignment

The Court observed that since the Tahsildar had already issued notices under Section 7 and initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the Act, the proper course of action for the alleged encroacher (Ashok Nambi) was to prefer an appeal under Section 10 rather than invoking writ jurisdiction

The Court dismissed Nambi’s claim to title based on a prior ex parte decree (O.S.No. 161 of 2012), noting that such a decree does not bind the State or the complainant who was not a party, nor does it override the land's classification as poramboke

Regarding the Mandamus sought by Velladurai, the Court found that because the executive authorities were already exercising their statutory powers to remove the encroachment, further judicial directions for eviction were unnecessary, provided the legal process was followed

It disposed of W.P.(MD)No.20020 of 2018 by granting Ashok Nambi 10 working days to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the District Collector

The District Collector was directed to dispose of said appeal within six months

If no appeal is filed, the Tahsildar is at liberty to proceed with eviction under Section 6

Finally, the District Munsif at Nanguneri was directed to dispose of the pending suit O.S.No.173 of 2022 within six months

No costs were awarded