Panchayat authorities may initiate proceedings to remove unauthorised occupation of Panchayat land under Section 131.

The petitioner occupied lands in Survey Nos. 842–846 at Porulur Village, Dindigul District.

Following an earlier order in W.P.(MD) No. 7758 of 2024, the fourth respondent examined the lands and treated them as classified “Padhai”; it then issued an order dated 13 August 2024 directing the petitioner’s eviction.

The petitioner challenged that order on the ground that the fourth respondent lacked jurisdiction to order eviction, without disputing the lands’ classification.

The respondents relied on Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and submitted that the competent Panchayat authorities could initiate eviction proceedings.

Whether the fourth respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for the petitioner’s eviction from the subject lands

Whether the impugned order warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Court applied Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, as conferring power on competent Panchayat authorities to address unauthorised occupation of lands belonging to or vested in the Panchayat, including by initiating proceedings for removal, subject to the statutory procedure.

It also stated that the distinction between initiating eviction proceedings and implementing eviction must be maintained: assistance from revenue authorities at the implementation stage does not, by itself, invalidate the Panchayat authority’s initiation of proceedings.

Under Article 226, the Court may intervene where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest illegality.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge because Section 131 empowered competent Panchayat authorities to initiate proceedings concerning unauthorised occupation of Panchayat land; any need for revenue officials’ assistance in carrying out eviction did not remove that authority.

The petitioner produced no material showing that the lands were private patta lands or were not classified as “Padhai,” and the challenge was substantially confined to jurisdiction.

The Court therefore found no ground for interference under Article 226.

It dismissed the writ petition, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.