Facts
The petitioner, T. Kumaresan, filed a Writ of Certiorari to quash a notice dated 12.02.2026 issued by the Block Development Officer (Respondent No. 3).
Source reference: p. 1The notice, issued under Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, called upon the petitioner to vacate a portion of property allegedly encroaching upon land belonging to the Chinna Salem Panchayat Union.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner challenged the legality of this notice before the High Court.
Source reference: p. 1Issues
1. Whether the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, is maintainable at this stage or is premature.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, which mandates that the Executive Authority or Commissioner must institute proceedings to secure the removal of encroachments on Panchayat properties.
Source reference: p. 2-3It further integrated the procedural requirements of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, specifically Sections 6 and 7, which provide for a secondary phase of statutory notices (show-cause and final removal) by the Revenue Tahsildar if the initial efforts by the Panchayat authorities do not result in the removal of the encroachment.
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court examined the statutory machinery for encroachment removal, noting a two-tier process.
Source reference: no citationFirst, under the Panchayat Act, the Executive Authority issues a notice to which the alleged encroacher may submit an explanation or documents.
Source reference: p. 3If an encroachment is confirmed after considering the explanation, a report is sent to the Tahsildar.
Source reference: p. 4Second, the Tahsildar must then trigger the 1905 Act, issuing a Section 7 notice (opportunity to be heard) followed by a Section 6 notice (final order of removal).
Source reference: p. 4The Court reasoned that since the impugned notice was merely the first step in this multi-stage legal process—granting the petitioner an opportunity to explain—the petitioner's legal rights had not yet been finally adjudicated.
Source reference: p. 4Therefore, judicial intervention via Article 226 was not warranted at this interlocutory stage.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court held that the writ petition was premature because the impugned notice was an initial proceeding under Section 131 of the Panchayat Act.
The Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the concerned authority for consideration.
Source reference: p. 4No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
T. Kumaresan v. The District Collector, Kallakurichi District and Others [W.P. No. 8060 of 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in