Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by V.Nalina and T.Yashwanth challenging the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai South Zone, for removal of encroachment. The impugned order was passed pursuant to directions in W.P.No.18538 of 2024 and contempt petition Cont P.No.2497 of 2025. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry on 13.03.2026 after issuing notice to parties, including the petitioners. The Tahsildar, Alandur, submitted a report which was relied upon. The petitioners contended that no statutory notice under the relevant Act was issued and that the enquiry was conducted without a show cause notice. The court observed that the enquiry had already been conducted and the petitioners participated and gave their statements, so there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order itself granted an opportunity to prefer an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Chennai. The court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal within 30 days, directing the District Revenue Officer to decide the appeal within eight weeks thereafter, and further directing the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer to submit a report to the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, for enforcement action and removal of encroachments if any. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Encroachment Removal - Petitioners challenged order of Revenue Divisional Officer for removal of encroachment on ground of no statutory notice - Court held that enquiry was conducted, petitioners participated and gave statements, thus no violation of natural justice - Petitioners directed to prefer appeal before District Revenue Officer within 30 days (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order for removal of encroachment was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without statutory notice.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to submit an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Chennai, within 30 days. If such appeal is preferred, the District Revenue Officer shall conduct an enquiry and decide the issues within eight weeks from the expiry of the 30-day period. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer shall submit a report to the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, for initiation of enforcement action and removal of encroachments. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- appellate remedy
- encroachment removal
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 86
W.P.No.16653 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.17903 & 17907 of 2026
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender
Mr.C.Jagadish for petitioners, Mr.T.Arunkumar (Additional Government Pleader) for R1
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai South Zone and Vairamuthu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of removal of encroachment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2026 passed by the 1st respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the order for removal of encroachment on the ground that no statutory notice was issued and principles of natural justice were violated.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, in W.P.No.18538 of 2024, the High Court had passed an order, and a contempt petition in Cont P.No.2497 of 2025 was filed. This Court directed authorities to initiate enforcement action.
Issues
Whether the impugned order for removal of encroachment was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
Whether the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before the order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that no statutory notice under the relevant Act was issued and that the enquiry was conducted without a show cause notice.
Respondents contended that the enquiry was conducted after notice and petitioners participated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the enquiry was conducted and petitioners participated and gave statements, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The availability of an appellate remedy was sufficient, and the petitioners were directed to avail the same.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court is of the considered view that the enquiry has already been conducted. Thus, it is not a case where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners participated in the process of enquiry and gave their statements. Thus, an opportunity was granted to the petitioners to defend their case.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2026 of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Earlier, in W.P.No.18538 of 2024, the High Court had passed an order, and a contempt petition in Cont P.No.2497 of 2025 was filed. This Court directed authorities to initiate enforcement action. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry on 13.03.2026 after issuing notice. The Tahsildar submitted a report. The impugned order was passed. The present writ petition was filed and disposed of on 27.04.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
