Petitioners May Challenge Eviction Orders Through the Available Statutory Revisional Remedy

The petitioners claimed to occupy parcels in Survey No. 67, originally classified as “Arasu Poramboke” and later reclassified as “Assessed Waste.”

They relied on pattas allegedly issued in their favour; the State disputed their authenticity, asserting that they were forged.

After the authorities issued eviction notices under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioners’ appeals under Section 10 were rejected.

They challenged the resulting orders in these writ petitions.

The State also submitted that a revision under Section 10-A was available before the Commissioner of Land Administration.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to pursue the statutory revisional remedy under Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, instead of having the merits of their challenges determined in the writ petitions

Whether coercive action against the petitioners should be withheld while those revisions are pending

Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, provides for action concerning encroachments; Section 10 provides an appeal against the relevant orders; and Section 10-A provides a revisional remedy before the Commissioner of Land Administration.

The Court relied on the availability of that statutory revision and directed that it be considered on the merits, without expressing a view on the parties’ rival claims.

The Court noted the dispute over the petitioners’ pattas and the State’s assertion that they were forged, but did not decide that factual or substantive dispute.

Given the nature of the controversy and the available revisional remedy under the Act, it considered it appropriate for the petitioners to approach the competent Revisional Authority.

To preserve the position pending that process, the Court directed that the respondents take no coercive steps concerning the properties until the revisions were disposed of.

It granted the petitioners four weeks from receipt of the order to file revisions before the Commissioner of Land Administration, who was directed to decide them on the merits, in accordance with law, and after hearing all concerned, within six weeks thereafter.

The respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps concerning the properties until the revisions were decided.

No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.