BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27/12/2007 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH W.P.(MD)No.11019 of 2007 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 M. Amsaveni, W/o. Mani, Old No.333, New No.545, Jawahar Bazaar, Karur - 639 001. ... Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Karur Municipality, Karur. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to the notice in Na.Ka.No.D4/891/07 dated 29.11.2007 and to quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr. V. Kannan ^For Respondent ... Mr. D. Gandhiraj Government Advocate :ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)
Mr. D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the
respondent. By consent of counsel appearing for both the parties, the main writ
petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent
relating to the notice in Na.Ka.No.D4/891/07 dated 29.11.2007 and to quash the
same.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the
petitioner stated that the property involved in the writ petition has been
assigned to her as per document dated 28.06.1999 for a sale consideration of
Rs.1,07,000/- by one Rahman. In all the revenue records, the name of the vendor
of the petitioner viz., Rahman is found to be entered, the land was also
assessed to land revenue and B-Memo was also issued in his name and the
respondent was also collecting the property tax.
4. The petitioner further stated that on an earlier occasion, he
preferred W.P.No.2772 of 2007 against the same respondent and in the said writ
petition, this Court passed the following order:-
“3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we issue the
following direction to the respondent:
The respondent is hereby directed to issue fresh notice as
contemplated under Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,
1920 and proceed further in accordance with law, so that the procedures
contemplated by law will be followed and opportunity will be given to the
aggrieved person, namely the petitioner”.
5. It appears that in compliance of the above said direction of
this Court, the respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 29.11.2007,
calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises within 24 hours from the date
of receipt of the notice, failing which it was indicated that she will be
evicted forcibly. Aggrieved by the said order, this Writ Petition has been
preferred.
6. We have gone through the order impugned in the writ petition and
heard the submissions of Mr. V. Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
7. It is true that the respondent is vested with powers to remove
encroachments under Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalties Act,
1920. However, such power has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. Even if
the provisions of law do not contemplate issue of notice before taking action
under a particular statute, still the principle of natural justice has to be
followed in such cases. It is more so in the case of action which results in
civil consequence and invariably in all such cases, reasonable notice should be
the rule. The period of notice in each case depends upon the nature of the case.
However, the notice giving 24 hours to vacate the premises cannot be termed as a
reasonable notice enabling the encroacher to submit her explanation. Therefore,
in cases where the action sought is for eviction from the premises belonging to
the Municipalities, a minimum period of 14 days would be a reasonable time, so
as to enable the encroacher to represent her case effectively. Whether there is
merits or not, is for the statutory authority to decide in the facts and
circumstances of the case by applying the law on the subject.
8. In the present case, in spite of earlier order of this Court to
issue fresh notice and to grant opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent
has chosen to issue the order impugned in the writ petition, giving 24 hours
time to vacate the premises. It is made clear that in the earlier order dated
26.03.2007 in W.P.No.2772 of 2007, there is a clear direction to the respondent
to grant opportunity to the petitioner herein to submit her case effectively.
The respondent failed to give such an opportunity and ultimately without
granting the reasonable opportunity to state her case, straightaway issued the
order of eviction granting 24 hours time, which in our opinion is a clear case
of flouting the earlier order of this Court. At any rate, we are of the
considered opinion that the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be
quashed granting liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh by issuing
reasonable notice to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed
and the writ petition is allowed. However, the respondent is at liberty to issue
fresh notice, giving at least two weeks time to the petitioner to submit her
explanation. If the petitioner submits her explanation within the time so
granted, then the respondent after giving her an opportunity of hearing, shall
consider her case keeping in view of the order of the Full Bench of this Court
reported in Ramaraju ..Vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (2) C.T.C. 741) and
pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.
Dpn
To:
The Commissioner,
Karur Municipality,
Karur.