A.V.K. Varadharajan, v. The District Collector,

2026:MHC:1378 Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP.No.35145 of 2005: A.V.K. Varadharajan ..Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1The District Collector, Salem.

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer Salem.

¶3The Tahsildar, Salem.

¶4The Revenue Inspector, Vembadithalam, Salem.

¶5The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(pwd), Water Resources Conservation Organisation, Sarabanga Division, Namakkal-637 001. [R5-impleaded As Per Order dated 31.01.2018 In Wmps.2360 To 2368/2018 In Wps.35145 To 35149, 35152, 35153, 35156 & 35157/2005.] ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records of the 4th respondent comprised in his notice dated 03.10.2005, quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta to the petitioner's land comprised in S.No.23/3, D.No.8-1/297, Santhaipettai Road, Ilampillai Village, Page2 of 5 Salem admeasuring 000.5 acres. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rahul Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petitions have been instituted challenging the show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (For brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act')

¶2No writ against the show cause notice is entertainable, unless such notice has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction. Petitioners, instead of submitting their explanation along with the documents, if any, have chosen to file writ petitions by raising certain grounds on merits, which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review in writ proceedings.

¶3Curiously, writ petitions challenging the show cause notice instituted in the year 2005 were kept pending before this Court for the past about 21 years and not listed for a long time. That apart, petitioner enjoyed the benefit of interim order for the past about 21 years, despite the fact that authorities identified the encroachments in the Government land. Page3 of 5

¶4In view of the facts and circumstances, petitioners are at liberty to submit their representation along with the documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of any such explanation, the competent authority shall consider the same, take a final decision, and thereafter issued final notice under Section 6 of the Act and proceed with the enforcement action for removal of encroachments, if any, identified. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months thereafter.

¶5With the above directions, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitioners, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 02-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD Note: Registry is directed to type the remaining cause titles. To

¶1The District Collector, Salem.

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer Salem.

¶3The Tahsildar, Salem.

¶4The Revenue Inspector, Vembadithalam, Salem. Page4 of 5

¶5The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(pwd), Water Resources Conservation Organisation, Sarabanga Division, Namakkal-637 001. Page5 of 5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND

K.SURENDER, J. GD 02-04-2026