A. Mayakrishnan vs The District Collector, Madurai District and Others

S. Manikumar, J—Material on record discloses that the appellant herein has filed a writ petition (MD) No. 2804 of 2015 seeking to quash the order in Ka. No. 9312/2014/P2, dated 27.02.2015, on the file of respondent No. 6, directing him to remove encroachments allegedly made by him in Survey No. 229/1A, to an extent of 0.18.5 Hectares, in Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai South Taluk, within two days. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition has been disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 10.03.2015. Paragraph 4 of the order reads as follows:

"4. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner is occupying the government poramboke land and he is liable to be evicted under law but only with notice. Therefore, the present impugned order will be treated as Section 6 notice and the petitioner is entitled to give his reply within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent concerned will pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after considering the reply given by the petitioner."

Material on record further discloses that earlier, apprehending eviction, the appellant has filed W.P.(MD) No. 5451 of 2014, for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent therein, not to evict him, from his dwelling house, situated in Survey No. 229/1A, Avaniyapuram Village, No. 4, Sub-Registrar Office, Madurai South Taluk, comprising 15 cents, without following due process of law. When the said writ petition came-up for hearing, Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appeared for the respondents therein, had submitted that if the appellant was to be evicted from the land in question, due process of law would be followed. Recording the said submission, vide order dated 17.09.2014, the said writ petition has been closed.

Construing that this Court, in the order dated 17.09.2014, had directed eviction, vide proceedings in RC. No. 9312/2014/P2, dated 27.02.2015, the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai, has directed the appellant to vacate from the subject property within two days, i.e., either on 28.02.2015 or on 01.03.2015. Vide notice, dated 27.02.2015, the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, has also stated that if the appellant fails to vacate from the said property, on his own, action for removal of encroachment would be taken on 02.03.2015. For better details, notice dated 27.02.2015, is extracted hereunder:

To quash the said notice, dated 27.02.2015, on the file of Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition (MD) No. 2804 of 2015, which was disposed of the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 10.03.2015, issuing directions, as extracted above.

Material on record further discloses that this Court in M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015 in W.P.(MD) No. 2804 of 2015, granted interim stay on 28.02.2015. Later on, when the writ petition came up for final hearing, by observing that the appellant/petitioner is occupying Government poramboke land, which is liable to be evicted under law, but only with notice and by further observing that the impugned order, dated 27.02.2015, be treated as Section 6 notice, the writ court permitted the appellant/petitioner to submit his reply within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order made in the writ petition and directed the authorities to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after considering the reply given by the appellant/petitioner. Thus, by order dated 10.03.2015, the writ petition was disposed of.

The said order made by the writ court is impugned on the grounds, inter alia, that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, notice under Section 7 is mandatory, before any order is passed under Section 6 of the Act, and that such notice should be served in the manner prescribed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. It is also submitted that unless and until the appellant/petitioner is given an opportunity to submit his reply to notice under Section 7, no order can be passed under Section 6, for eviction. The order made by the writ court is also assailed on other grounds, which were seriously not urged.

Considering the limited challenge made, Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader, was put on notice. He submitted that notice, dated 27.02.2015, issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, be treated as a notice under Section 7 and that the respondents be permitted to proceed further, in accordance with law, after receipt of reply from the appellant/petitioner.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

Before adverting to the above contentions, we deem it fit to extract relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

"6. Liability of person un-authorizedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops etc.--(1) Any person un-authorizedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under section 3 or section 3-A may be summarily evicted by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred as the Authorised Officer) and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised Officer may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector or subject to his control by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised Officer and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector or subject to his control the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised officer may direct.

(2) An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner namely:--By serving a notice in the manner provided in section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the Collector or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and, if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Collector or the Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised officer shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized officer for such period not exceeding 30 days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form of the schedule for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for the like period:

Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under sections 183, 186 or 188 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same facts.

(3) Any authorised officer taking proceedings under this section shall make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar having jurisdiction.

Prior notice to person in occupation.--Before taking proceedings under section 6 the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any authorised officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an authorised officer) (hereinafter referred to as the ''specified officer'') as the case may be shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in un-authorised occupation of land being the property of Government a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under section 6. Such notice shall be served in the manner prescribed in section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, or in such other manner as the State Government by rules or orders under section 8 may direct.

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in the case of any person un-authorisedly occupying any land, if he had been previously evicted from such land under section 6 or if he has previously vacated such land voluntarily after the receipt of a notice under section 5-B or under this section:

Provided further that where the notice under this section is caused to be served by any Revenue Inspector or any specified officer he shall require the person reputed to be in un-authorized occupation of the land to show cause against such notice to the Collector, Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar or authorized person having jurisdiction, as the case may be and shall also make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar or authorized person having jurisdiction, as the case may be."

As rightly contended by Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner, before resorting to action under Section 6 of the Act, notice under Section 7 of the Act to the person in occupation of the Government Proamboke land is mandatory. Reference can be made to the following decisions.

(i) In Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1081 : (1982) 1 SCALE 180 : (1982) 2 SCC 134 : (1982) 3 SCR 500 : (1982) 14 UJ 259 , the Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate the correctness of a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andra Pradesh. The question which arose for consideration was with regard to the power of the Government to evict the respondents therein summarily, in exercise of the power conferred by the Andra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The provisions are almost pari-materia to the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. On the aspect of summary eviction vis-avis, claim of the person over the property in possession, recourse to summary remedy in the case of encroachment of recent origin, at Paragraphs 8 to 10, the Apex Court, held as follows:

"8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in un-authorized occupation of any land which is "the property of the Government". In regard to property described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2, there can be no doubt, difficulty or dispute as to the title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of such property, the Government would be free to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided for in Section 6. A person who occupies a part of a public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like, is in un-authorized occupation of property which is declared by Section 2 to be the property of the Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to evict him expeditiously, which can only be done by resorting to the summary remedy provided by the Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in un-authorized occupation of a land "for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3". Section 3, in turn, refers to un-authorized occupation of any land "which is the property of the Government". If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. In the instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine dispute between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three plots of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost title to the property by operation of the law of limitation. The suit filed by the University was dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since Nawab Habibuddin was found to have encroached on the property more than 12 years before the date of the suit and the University was not in possession of the property at any time within that period. Having failed in the suit, the University activated the Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees summarily, which seems to us impermissible. The respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the respondents.

The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned Single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Meharunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was affirmed by a Division Bench. It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.

The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. Maybe, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily."

For the reasons stated supra, the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the High Court of Andra Pradesh.

(ii) In Hamsavalli and etc. Vs. The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District, AIR 1990 Mad 350 , a Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court considered the correctness of the order of the writ court, refusing to issue a Writ of Certiorari. In the above reported case, notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was put to challenge and the main contention of the appellants therein was that they were not served with prior notice, as laid down under Section 7 of the Act and therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated. After considering Ravipudi Abbayya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1960 AP 134 and the statutory provisions, the Hon''ble Division Bench, at Paragraph 2, held as follows:

"We are in agreement with the above summing up since it succinctly brings out the procedure that has got to be adopted as per Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act. The language of S. 7 of the Act is unambiguous when it says that before taking proceedings under S. 6, the Authority concerned shall cause to serve on the person reputed to be in un-authorized occupation of land being the property of Government a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under S. 6 and Section 7 also contemplates as to how such notice shall be served. It is not possible to belittle the requirements of this provision and reduce them to an empty formality. When a power is vested with an authority under the statute, that power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor, and any departure therefrom cannot be easily tolerated. In P. Ramaswamy Vs. The Assistant Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, (1977) 1 MLJ 162 Ramanujam J., was obliged to frown upon the initiation of notice for summary eviction under S. 6 of the Act when there have been no notice under S. 7 of the Act served on the party. This being the implications, which are imperative, of the provisions of the Act, we are obliged to countenance the grievance put forth on behalf of the appellants through their learned counsel Mr. B.S. Venkatachal. We are not able to appreciate and fall in line with the view of the learned single Judge that whether notices under S. 7 of the Act had been issued or not, if enquiry is held that would serve the cause of the appellants. As we stated above, the statutory prescriptions must have their due significance by observance and they cannot be allowed to be breached and amelioration therefor cannot be thought about by saying that the persons affected could participate in the enquiry, which must ensue. Under these circumstances, we are obliged to interfere in writ appeal, and accordingly these writ appeals are allowed; the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 14713, 14629 and 15121 of 1980 is set aside and these writ petitions will stand allowed as prayed for. No costs. We make it clear that our allowing the writ petitions shall not debar the respondent from initiating proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if there is warrant for it and it is open to the appellants to counteract the same as per their rights and stand available to them in law."

(iii) In Gooda Srinivasalu Naidu Vs. The Collector and Others, (1997) 3 CTC 106 , the petitioner therein challenged the notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by the Tahsildar, Uthukottai, Chengleput District, wherein, the petitioner was directed to surrender lands, stated to have been, under unauthorized occupation. According to the petitioner therein, he was regular in payment of assessment claimed by the Revenue Authorities for the said un-authorized occupation. The petitioner therein also stated that he had dug up a borewell and spent huge money and energy, to convert the said two acres of poramboke land into cultivable land. ''B'' Memos were also issued. On the contrary, the respondents therein, in their counter affidavit have contended that the petitioner therein was under un-authorized occupation in a river poramboke and that payment of assessment would not confer any right to continue in possession and therefore, action initiated under Section 6 of the Act was within their jurisdiction. On the above pleadings and considering the statutory provisions, at Paragraph 9, this Court held as follows:

"9. It is well settled law that when a power is vested with an authority under the statute, that power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Therefore, any departure there from cannot be easily tolerated. In the instant case, the very statute prescribes the manner in which power should be exercised by the authorities and there is no provision in the statute to dispense with such a procedure at all. The statutory prescriptions must have their due significance by observance and they cannot be allowed to be breached and amelioration there for cannot be thought about by saying that the persons affected could participate in the enquiry."

(iv) In D. Sathish Vs. Tahsildar and others, AIR 1998 Mad 291 : (1998) 3 CTC 215 , the appellant therein has challenged an order passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, on the ground that no prior notice was issued under Section 7 of the Act. A learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that, "though the impugned notice purported to be a notice under Section 6 of the Act, in substance, it was really a notice under Section 7 of the Act". Testing the correctness of the same, a Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

"3. Before taking proceedings under Section 6, the Collector of Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar, or Revenue Inspector, or any authorised officer or any other officer specified by the State Government in that behalf shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be an un-authorized occupant, of a land, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Section 6 of the Act. But such notice need not be served in the case of any person un-authorizedly occupying the land, if he had previously been evicted from such land under Section 6, or, if he has previously vacated such land voluntarily, after the receipt of a notice under Section 5-B or under Section 7. The non-issuance of notice was held to vitiate the proceedings taken under Section 6 of the Act by this Court in Hamsavalli and etc. Vs. The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District, AIR 1990 Mad 350 . The notice reads that in the event of not vacating within 15 days, including the superstructure and the crops on the property are liable to be confiscated. It is not same thing as calling upon him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act empowers the authority to take such action to confiscate anything found on the land including crops or other products, raised or any building erected thereon, if not removed within stipulated time. The wordings of the impugned notice are fully in compliance with the requirements of Section 6, rather than insisting for showing cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 6 of the Act. Sub-Clause (2) of Section 6 of the Act provides that by serving a notice in the manner provided under Section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation in the event of refusing to vacate, the officer so authorized may remove any such person, after holding a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, if he is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and take such appropriate action against such person, including penal action."

Reversing the finding of the learned Single Judge, at Paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the Hon''ble Division Bench held that forcible eviction by revenue authorities without following the legal requirements is bad in law.

(v) In V. Arunagiri and Others Vs. The Divisional Engineer and Another, (1999) 1 MLJ 308 : (1999) WritLR 175 , it was the case of the appellants therein that due to the plaintiff''s political motivation, pressure was brought upon the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Thiruvannamalai, to demolish the houses, without any justification. It was the further case of the appellants therein that they were in continuous occupation of the respective sites, houses were built thereon, and their names were also found in the Voter''s list, ration card, etc., and that even assuming the appellants were encroachers, provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, have to be strictly followed, before taking action. It was the further contention that provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act., were not followed. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents therein, contenting inter alia that, the levy of tax by the second respondent therein and electricity connection given by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, cannot confer ownership to the appellants. It was also submitted that the Voter''s Lists, Ration Cards, etc., do not give any rights to the appellants, over the Highways land. On the above pleadings and consideration of the rival submissions, a learned Single Judge held that the appellants therein cannot assert their rights over the houses and the land, as they were mere trespassers and that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked, to grant the relief sought for, in the writ petitions and accordingly, dismissed the same. Testing the correctness of the said order and after considering the decisions in Hamsavalli and etc. Vs. The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District, AIR 1990 Mad 350 , Ravipudi Abbayya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1960 AP 134 and Sri Chamundi Leather and Others Vs. The Collector and Others, (1995) 2 CTC 355 , a Hon''ble Division Bench, at Paragraph 15, held as follows:

"we allow these appeals and set aside the common order of the learned single Judge impugned in these writ appeals, so far it relates to the appellants. It is open to the respondents, if they so desire, that the encroachments are to be removed in relation to the appellants, they can do so, but by following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, in particular, Secs. 7 and 6 of the Act or any other law. The houses of the appellants shall not be demolished or they shall not be evicted from the land and houses in question, without following the proper procedure as indicated above, or without adopting any appropriate course, in accordance with law."

(vi) In N. Periasamy alias Koothanar and Others Vs. The Sub-Collector and Another, AIR 2000 Mad 241 : (2000) 1 MLJ 227 , the petitioners therein sought for a Mandamus, forbearing the respondents therein and their subordinate officials from in any manner, evicting them from the properties or demolishing the building, except under due process of law. It was alleged that the land encroached by the petitioners therein was classified as Vari Poramboke and hence, objectionable. After considering the judgments in Hamsavalli and etc. Vs. The Tahsildar, Vridhachalam, South Arcot District, AIR 1990 Mad 350 , Ravipudi Abbayya Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1960 AP 134 , D. Sathish Vs. Tahsildar and others, AIR 1998 Mad 291 : (1998) 3 CTC 215 and two other decisions, on the aspect as to how and in what manner, service of notice should be effected, this Court, at Paragraphs 12 to 14, held as follows:

"12. As we have seen in the judgments supra, mere service of Sec. 7 notice is not sufficient to satisfy the needs of law or even in the case where it is served, the further question that is to be gone into is whether the manner in which it has been served is relevant. Further more the enquiry is also contemplated to be held by the eviction officer and then as to how the eviction notice was served, in the presence of the petitioner or in his absence by affixture or in the presence of neighbors with their signatures and these procedures have to be meticulously adhered to.

So far as these writ petitioners are concerned, the respondents do not at all seem to have attempted to follow these legal procedures that are to be observed mandatory. Time and again this Court has passed many judgments and orders tellingly pointing out that even not only for those in whose favour certain rights have accrued regarding the property in their occupation but also even in the case of un-authorized occupation or in the case of a recent occupier, the procedures laid down under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 should be meticulously followed without which no eviction or assuming of possession could take place much less in any other manner. In spite of that, the respondents have been so careless in their attempt to evict the petitioners and hence, at any cost, the manner in which the respondents have acted, cannot be approved since they are not in adherence of the procedures laid down by law and propounded by courts.

The prayer of the petitioners is specific in the sense that they have sought protection only from being evicted except under due process of law and their apprehension is natural and genuine. Since there is clear cut violation of the principles of natural justice in not offering sufficient and reasonable opportunities for the petitioners either to make their reasonable representation or to participate in the enquiry that is to be held prior to reasoning to evict them, the interference sought for by the petitioners has become imminent and quite necessary and in the above circumstances, it has become incumbent on the part of this Court to answer the prayers of all the petitioners in the writ petitions in the affirmative."

Reverting to the case on hand, first of all, in the order dated 17.09.2014, made in W.P. (MD) No. 5451 of 2014, no positive direction has been issued by this Court to remove the alleged encroachment. Therefore, notice dated 27.02.2015, deserves to be set aside on the ground stated supra. Further, only two days time has been granted, as per the said notice. Subsequently, when the writ petition [W.P. (MD) No. 2804 of 2015] came up for final hearing, the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant/petitioner is liable to be evicted, under law but only with a notice. The question as to whether the appellant/petitioner has to be evicted from the alleged encroachment, depends upon consideration of the explanation to be offered by the appellant/petitioner. Therefore, before adjudicating the said issue by the authority, we only wish to state that the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the appellant/petitioner is occupying Government Poramboke land and he is liable to be evicted, may influence the mind of the authority who has to consider the reply of the appellant/petitioner in proper perspective. As stated supra, notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is mandatory. Therefore, to rectify the mistake, considering the statutory provisions and the grounds raised in the present appeal, the impugned order, dated 27.02.2015, issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, requires to be set aside in toto. Notice, dated 27.02.2015, is pre-determined, on the premise that the High Court has ordered eviction.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order, dated 10.03.2015, passed in W.P. (MD) No. 2804 of 2015, is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 27.02.2015, issued by the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, is also set aside. However, the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, Respondent No. 6 herein, is at liberty to proceed afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, as indicated above. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.