The Madras High Court has clarified the mandatory procedural sequence for removing encroachments on village panchayat land, reinforcing the statutory roles of revenue officers under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905. This order provides critical guidance to local authorities on the non-discretionary steps required to enforce land rights without resorting to summary action.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Krishnan S/o Govindaraj, filed a writ petition seeking removal of unauthorized encroachments on Survey No. 942/1, located on Ramar Koil Street in Periyapodinatham Village, Mahimandalam, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. The land is owned by the Mahimandalam Village Panchayat. The petitioner alleged that respondents 6 to 8 - individuals residing on the same street - had illegally occupied portions of this panchayat land. Despite submitting a formal representation dated 26.09.2025 to the respondents, no action was taken.
Key Facts
- Survey No. 942/1 is registered as panchayat land under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act
- Respondents 6 to 8 are alleged encroachers occupying portions of the said survey number
- The petitioner submitted a written representation on 26.09.2025 requesting removal of encroachments
- No notice, survey, or eviction proceedings were initiated by any respondent authority after receipt of the representation
- The land is not under private ownership; it is held in trust by the Village Panchayat for public use
Procedural History
- 26.09.2025: Petitioner submitted representation to respondents 1 to 5 seeking removal of encroachments
- No response or action taken by any of the respondents within a reasonable time
- 15.10.2025: Writ Petition No. 42556 of 2025 filed before the Madras High Court
- 20.04.2026: Hearing conducted; respondents 1 to 5 appeared through government counsel; respondents 6 to 8 were not present or represented
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the respondents 1 to 5, as statutory authorities under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, had a mandatory duty to act upon his representation. He argued that inaction amounted to dereliction of statutory duty and violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of public land.
For the Respondents 1 to 5
The Additional Government Pleader and Government Advocate acknowledged the existence of encroachments but stated that procedural formalities were pending. They submitted that the Tahsildar had identified the encroachments during a survey but had not yet forwarded the report to the Block Development Officer for initiation of action.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments made by respondents 6 to 8 on Survey No. 942/1, in accordance with law, and to act upon his representation dated 26.09.2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Tahsildar, Block Development Officer, and other revenue authorities are bound by a statutory sequence of action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act to remove encroachments on panchayat land, and whether their failure to follow this sequence constitutes a legal default.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the statutory framework under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, which vests the responsibility of land management in the Village Panchayat, and the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, which prescribes a two-stage process: first, identification and notice by the Block Development Officer; second, eviction proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar. He cited State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Rajagopal (2018) to argue that statutory duties are not discretionary and must be performed upon receipt of a valid representation.
For the Respondent/State
The State acknowledged the existence of encroachments but argued that the Tahsildar had completed the survey and identified the encroachers, and that the matter was in the process of being referred to the Block Development Officer. They contended that no delay was intentional and that the process was merely pending administrative transmission.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory scheme under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905. It held that the procedure for removal of encroachments is not left to administrative discretion but is a mandatory, sequential process. The Tahsildar’s role is limited to identifying encroachments and reporting them to the Block Development Officer. Only after the Block Development Officer issues a notice under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, and the encroacher fails to vacate, may the Tahsildar initiate formal eviction proceedings under Section 5.
"The Tahsildar has to follow the procedures and thereafter, ensure that the encroachers identified are removed in accordance with law."
The Court rejected the notion that mere identification of encroachment suffices. It emphasized that without the Block Development Officer initiating action, the Tahsildar cannot proceed independently. The Court noted that the petitioner’s representation dated 26.09.2025 triggered the statutory obligation, and the authorities had failed to act within a reasonable time.
The Court further held that the delay in action, even if not mala fide, undermines public trust in land administration and violates the principle of effective governance under Article 243G of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the Block Development Officer shall identify the extent of encroachments on Survey No. 942/1 and issue notice to respondents 6 to 8 within four weeks. Thereafter, the Tahsildar shall initiate eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, if the encroachers fail to vacate. The entire process shall be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Sequence Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must insist that authorities follow the prescribed order: identification → BDO notice → Tahsildar eviction
- Any attempt by Tahsildar to initiate eviction without BDO’s prior notice is legally invalid
- Representations to revenue authorities must be treated as triggers for statutory duty, not as mere complaints
Documentation and Timelines Are Critical
- All steps - survey reports, notices issued, replies received - must be documented and preserved
- Delays beyond 12 weeks without justification may now attract writ jurisdiction for non-feasance
- Petitioners in similar cases should cite this judgment to compel action where authorities claim "pending process"
Accountability of Multi-Tier Authorities
- This judgment establishes that no authority can shift blame to another
- The BDO cannot claim inaction due to lack of report; the Tahsildar cannot claim lack of authority to act
- Each officer’s duty is distinct and non-delegable under the statute
