WP/39312/2026 of A. Gandhimathi Vs The Collector on 29 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein claims to be the lawful owner of the property measuring 1,280 Sq.Ft., situated at Plot No.11, Sri Perumal Nagar, Periyakurichi, Virudhachalam Taluk. He alleges that the Block Development Officer (BDO), at the instigation of the neighbouring land owners had issued a notice alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon a public pathway. Hence, pray to quash the said proceedings on the grounds that the notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.14073 of 2024 dated 01.04.2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no survey was conducted to establish whether the petitioner's property is on the Government poramboke pathway. Further, he submitted that the third respondent namely, the Block Development Officer has no authority or competence to issue the impugned notice purported to have been issued under the Village Panchayat Act, 1994.

3. In response to the plea challenging the competency of the Block Development Officer to issue the impugned notice, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14394 of 2020 (order dated 07.10.2020), has already settled the issue. Considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, the Court has held that any obstruction over a public road can be removed by following the procedure contemplated under the Village Panchayat Act. The authorities empowered to remove such encroachments include both the Panchayat President and the Block Development Officer. To support this contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied upon paragraph 9 of the aforementioned order, which reads as below:- “9. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions, the respondents 1 and 2 are having statutory powers to initiate appropriate action for removal of encroachments and in the light of the availability of alternative remedy as indicated in the decision reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 1134 (DB) cited supra, it is open to the petitioner to invoke Section 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and if the petitioner is so advised, he is at liberty to invoke the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents shall defer further decision in terms of the impugned notices.”

4. Perusal of the order cited above, we find that the Division Bench of this Court had relied upon the earlier order rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in V.Balamurugan V. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 1134, which speaks about the competency of the Block Development Officer to initiate action against encroachers in the following terms:- “22. It is more beneficial to have a glance at Section 219, which reads thus:

219. Revision-(1) The Government may, after consulting the Inspector, Collector or such other officer or authority as they may deem fit, at any time, either suo motu or on application, call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by- (a) the Inspector or the Collector or any officer authorised by the Inspector or the Collector under Subsection (2) or (3) of Section 218; or (b) any officer authorized by the Government under Sub-section (1) of that Section or any officer empowered by them under sub-section (4) of that section or

(c) any other authority or officer; for the purpose of satisfying themselves as the legality or propriety of such order, or as to the regularity of such proceeding and pass such order in reference thereto as they think fit.

25. To sum up, a president of a Village Panchayat, who is the Executive Authority of the Panchayat, can very well issue a notice or order to the encroacher, seeking for his eviction, either on his own or on the report obtained from the Village Administrative Officer. In that process, if the socalled encroacher fails to comply with the notice or direction for removal of encroachment, as sought for by the President in his capacity as the Executive Authority has to seek for removal of such encroachment by approaching the Revenue Department Officials, who, in turn, can initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for removal of such encroachment. If any such notice is issued to the petitioner, he will be at liberty to work out his remedy by invoking sections 201, 202 and 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Nothing would prevent him from seeking the remedy before the competent Civil Court, if he comes forward with the contention of title and enjoyment over the property, on the strength of a registered Sale Deed,if he so desires, and it is for the said Court to grant necessary reliefs, on the merits of the case.”

5. The learned Special Government Pleader, however, fairly submitted that a subsequent order of the Division Bench of this Court in Raji V. The District Collector, Kallakurichi District (W.P.No.49087 of 2025, order dated 19.12.2025) while dealing with a notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the Court observed that the Executive Authority or Commissioner of Village Panchayat is empowered under Section 131(2) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, to issue a show- cause notice fixing a timeline for vacating the premises. However, in the event of failure to remove the encroachment, the Executive Authority must submit a report to the jurisdictional Tahsildar or any of the competent authority under the Act, for removal of encroachment. It is the Tahsildar or such competent authority alone are empowered to initiate enforcement action for eviction.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader also brought to our notice, another order in W.P.No.38617 of 2025, Jebaraj Vs. Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Hosur [(2026) MHC 100], wherein, the same Division Bench has observed as below:- “9.Under Section 131(2) of the Act, the Executive Officer or the Commissioner shall initiate the proceedings either suo motu or based on the report of the village administrative officer and secure the removal of the encroachments within such time as may be specified by the Government by General or special order. If the notice failed to vacate the property by himself/herself, then the Commissioner for the executive authority is duty bound to submit a report to the Revenue Department/Tahsildar for removal of encroachments. On receipt of any such report from the Commissioner or Executive Authority, a jurisdictional Tahsildar shall institute the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Act. On receipt of explanations from the alleged encroachers, final notice under Section 6 of the Act may be issued. Thereafter, the encroachments have to be removed. An aggrieved person is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act before the District Collector.

10. This being the scheme under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, the said procedures have to be followed. In the present case, in the event of not vacating the public premises by the petitioner, the Commissioner shall submit a report to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to invoke the provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for initiation of eviction proceedings.”

7. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the observation made in Raji case or Jebaraj case not in consonance with the principles laid down by the earlier Division Benches of this Court. Encroachment on Government land can be addressed by invoking provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, if it is an encroachment on Government land simpliciter. If the land encroached is classified as a waterbody, there is special Act to deal such encroachment. Likewise, if the land is classified as public road and the property falls within panchayat limits, the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, can be invoked. The powers conferred on various authorities are ultimately intended to ensure removal of illegal occupations from Government land.

8. As far as the present case is concerned, the subject land is located within the Periyakurichi Panchayat, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, squarely applies. Section 131 of the Act prohibits obstruction in or over public roads. Section 131(2) of the Panchayats Act makes it clear that the Executive Authority of the Panchayat is empowered to remove encroachments made in or over the property vested with the Panchayat. It also mandates that it shall be the duty of the Village Administrative Officer of the village to report any encroachment on property vested within Village Panchayat to the Executive Authority, the Commissioner concerned or to the officers of the Revenue Department. The second limb of the subsection (2) of Section 131 does not take away the power of the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, it only enables him to take the assistance of the Revenue Department to enforce the eviction.

9. Therefore, it is predominantly the duty of the Executive Authority of the Panchayat to remove such encroachments and in case of any difficulty or

failure, they can resort to take the assistant of the revenue officials. Three Division Benches of this Court have consistently held that the Block Development Officer, as the Executive Authority of the Panchayat, is competent to exercise power of issuing notice for eviction on a public road. The two contra decisions rendered subsequently, without any reference to the earlier judgments of co-equivalent strength, is to be held as per incuriam.

10. To recapitulate those three Division Bench orders are:

(i) V.Balamurugan V. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar [(2008) 1 MLJ 1134].

(ii) Sundari Vs. District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and another [(2007) 6 MLJ 399]; and

(iii) Vadamalai Vs. The Block Development Officer, Veppur Panchayat Union, Veppur, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District and another [W.P.No.49087 of 2025, order dated 19.12.2025]. All the three Division Bench judgements cited supra have held that the Block Development Officer, as the Executive Authority of the Panchayat, is competent to issue the notice. Hence, on this ground, the challenge to the competence of the authority issuing the impugned order does not survive.

11. Be it as it may, on perusal of the impugned notice, we find that the exact extent of the encroachment has not been mentioned. Though the learned Special Government Pleader states that Form-1 notice was issued to the petitioner indicating the exact description of encroachment on the public pathway, (i.e.) construction of a septic tank, the same is not reflected in the impugned notice.

12. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate to direct the third respondent to inspect the property, identify and earmark the encroached portion and issue fresh notice informing the petitioner the exact area to be removed. In the event of failure to remove, the third respondent shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

13. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rpl To

1. The Collector Collector Office, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

2. The Tasildar Taluk office, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District.

3. Block Development Officer Kammapuram Block, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District

4. Periyakurichi Panchayat Represetned by its Secretary, Periyakurichi, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. rpl WP No. 39312 of 2026 and WMP Nos. 44168, 44170 & 44171 of 2026 29-09-2026