Facts
The petitioner was found to have encroached upon a "cart track" in Erumaivetti Village, which was recorded in revenue records and used by farmers from three villages for agricultural transport.
Source reference: p. 2-3Authorities initiated action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, issuing notices under Section 7 (show cause) and Section 6 (final notice).
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 10 on 16.06.2025.
Source reference: p. 2Concurrently, the petitioner filed a previous writ petition (W.P.No.21937 of 2025), where the Court recorded on 18.06.2025 that the said statutory appeal stood "withdrawn".
Source reference: p. 3Despite this recording, the District Collector proceeded with an enquiry on 17.10.2025, in which the petitioner participated and submitted a defense.
Source reference: p. 4-5The Collector ultimately dismissed the appeal on 05.01.2026, leading to the present writ petition.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the District Collector is sustainable given that the underlying statutory appeal was previously recorded as withdrawn by the High Court.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the petitioner's participation in the subsequent enquiry prevents her from seeking a remand of the matter on procedural grounds.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court primarily applied the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, specifically Section 6 (removal of encroachment), Section 7 (prior notice), and Section 10 (appeal process).
Source reference: p. 2It further relied on Revenue Standing Order 26(15), which mandates that a cart track, even if located within patta land, must be maintained for public utility.
Source reference: p. 2The court also invoked the principle of "futile exercise" in administrative law, suggesting that remanding a matter is unnecessary if the outcome is unlikely to change following a fair hearing.
Source reference: p. 4-5Reasoning
The Court noted that while the previous writ order recorded the withdrawal of the appeal, the petitioner actively participated in the District Collector’s enquiry on 17.10.2025.
Source reference: p. 4By submitting a defense statement and participating in the process, the petitioner waived the right to later claim the proceedings were void due to the prior "withdrawal".
Source reference: p. 4The Court found that the District Collector had conducted an elaborate enquiry, affording all parties an opportunity to be heard.
Source reference: p. 5Substantively, the Court emphasized that the cart track is essential for the livelihood of farmers in three villages; allowing an encroachment to persist would infringe upon their right to carry out agricultural activities.
Source reference: p. 4Consequently, the Court reasoned that remanding the case for "fresh adjudication" would be a "futile exercise" as the facts regarding the obstruction and the necessity of the track were clearly established during the Collector’s enquiry.
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Court held that there was no infirmity in the District Collector's order as the petitioner participated in the due process and the encroachment on a public cart track was Factually established.
The Court answered the issues by stating that the petitioner cannot "turn around" and challenge the validity of the appeal process after participating in it.
Source reference: p. 4The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 5No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
M. Shanthi v. The District Collector / Appellate Authority & Others [2026:MHC:902]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in