14.In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the writ petition is misconceived, unsustainable and meritless. Hence, this Court finds no warrant to interfere with the impugned eviction notice. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (DR.G.J.J.) (N.M.J) 15.06.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 04.06.2026
PRONOUNCED ON :15.06.2026
CORAM

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

W.P.No.21097 of 2026
and
WMP.No.22834 of 2026

K.Natarajan,
S/o.Kuppa Gounder,
K.Mottu Village, Kallapadi Post,
Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District.
….Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
A Block, 2nd Floor,
Collectorate,
Vellore – 632009

2.The District Revenue Officer,
1st Floor, ‘A’ Block,
District Collectorate Campus,
Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632009

3.The District Forest Officer,
Vellore Forest Division,
Vellore Division Fort,
Vellore 632 004.

4.The Revenue Inspector, Gudiyatham (East)
Taluk Office Campus,
143 & 144, Railway Station Road,
Arunachala Nagar,
Gudiyatham, 632 602.

5.The Tahsildar, Gudiyatham,
Taluk Office Campus,
143 & 144, Railway Station Road,
Arunachala Nagar,
Gudiyatham, 632 602.
…..Respondents

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 5th Respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 27.05.2026 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson
For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendar,
Government Advocate

ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.)

Writ petition is filed to call for the records of the 5th Respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 27.05.2026 and quash the same.

2.In the present case the father and son duo, have successfully stalled the efforts of the respondents to reclaim Government forest poromboke land, and are squatting over the same without any semblance of right over it. The present impugned notice dated 27.05.2026, under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is issued pursuant to and is a culmination of the order dated 06.02.2023 in WP.No.2982 of 2023 and the order in contempt petition No.91 of 2024 dated 20.04.2026.

3.The petitioner owns property in S.No’s.253/4G, 253/5C, 253/6, 253/4K, 253/4L and 257/1, in Kallapadi Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, admeasuring 1.67 acres totally. He proposed to construct a house in his private land with the assistance of his son, a Jawan in the Indian Army. However, due to the installation of the High-Tension (HT), transmission line in the middle of his patta lands, the petitioner petitioned the respondents to shift the HT, transmission line. Since the respondents failed to respond favourably, the petitioner constructed his house pre-dominantly in his patta lands and extended a part of it in the adjacent Government poromboke forest land, in S.No.254. Whileso one R.Sivasankar, filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2982 of 2023, to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner in the subject Government poromboke forest land in S.No.254. Since the authorities despite the order of this Court in the said writ petition, failed to take action, he filed contempt petition in Cont.P.No.91 of 2024. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in the said writ petition and contempt petition, the impugned eviction notice dated 27.05.2026 was issued to the petitioner.

4.We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

5.The petitioner has admittedly constructed his house on a portion of the Government poromboke land in S.No.254. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2982 of 2023 and Cont.P.No.91 of 2024, the impugned eviction notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said notice primarily on the ground that the impugned eviction notice is issued on a misconception regarding the classification of the land and on the basis of an erroneous entry in the revenue records. The fulcrum of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the classification of land as Government poromboke forest land is erroneous and based on a mistaken entry in the 1987 UDR. The learned counsel contends that mere entry in the revenue record as forest poromboke or Kaattu poromboke, in the absence of compliance of mandatory statutory procedure contemplated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, will not validate the classification as forest poromboke land.

6.A perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner’s son filed W.P.No.20064 of 2023 for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider his representation dated 22.06.2023 and consequently direct the respondents to issue a patta to his newly constructed house or to take his patta land adjacent to S.No.254 in K.Mottur Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, as alternative land. The said writ petition was disposed on 07.07.2023 by the First Division Bench of this Court with a direction to the 1st respondent to “take a decision on the representation if it is still pending, on merits and in accordance with law and policy, within a period of nine months”. Since the respondents did not comply with the said direction, the petitioner’s son filed Cont.P.No.1920 of 2024. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 28.08.2024, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner’s representation for issuance of patta on the ground that S.No.254 of an extent of 0.24.50 hectres was classified as Arasu Poromboke with remarks Kalam forest poromboke. In the said order, it was further stated that the petitioner’s representation was forwarded to the Forest Department for its comment and the Forest Department vide communication dated 13.06.2024, rejected the petitioner’s request for exchange of lands, since there was no provision in the Forest Act for such exchange. In the said communications the Forest Department had further directed the immediate removal of the encroachment. The petitioner’s son thereafter filed W.P.No.23018 of 2025, for a direction directing the respondents therein, to rectify the wrong entry made by the authorities with respect to S.No.254 in K.Mottur Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, as forest land instead of Government dry land or accept the compensation for the land occupied by him. The said writ petition has neither been referred to in the writ affidavit nor its fate revealed and therefore this Court has no clue if it is disposed or still pending. The petitioner for reasons best known to him has not disclosed the above facts. In any event, the fact remains that the petitioner’s son’s representation for grant of patta or exchange of land on identical grounds was already considered and rejected by the authorities. It is also not known if the order dated 28.08.2024, was challenged by the petitioner’s son or if it has attained finality. The petitioner without disclosing the said facts has now filed the second round of litigation challenging the impugned eviction notice dated 27.05.2026, raising identical ground that, the classification of the lands as Government forest poromboke land is erroneous and misconceived.

7.It is further pertinent to note here that the petitioner also filed writ petition in W.P.No.8857 of 2023, for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents therein, to issue patta in his name for the subject property after rectifying the wrong entries made as forest poromboke and forest road in the revenue records. The said writ petition was disposed on 21.03.2023, issuing directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.08.2022 and 04.03.2023 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the 1st respondent by order dated 15.06.2023, rejected the petitioner’s as well as his son’s representations for grant of patta. Even in the said order, it was made clear that subject land was classified as forest poromboke.
8.In our view, the petitioner has manipulated the facts by picking and choosing the facts more suitable to him. The petitioner has not come to Court with candid facts and has not disclosed the material facts fully and truly. In all fairness, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the aforesaid proceedings initiated by his son and himself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authority of India Limited and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, held that this Court, has inherent power to prevent abuse of process, discharge rule nisi and refuse to proceed further the case on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went to the extent of stating that the Court would be failing in its duty, if does not reject the petition on the ground of distortion of facts. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because“the court knows law but not facts”.
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.”
We are therefore of the view that the petitioner has approached this Court with soiled hands and has grossly abused the process of Court by filing the present writ petition despite being fully conscious of the earlier proceedings, thereby attempting to mislead the Court and circumvent the process of law.

9. It is further pertinent to note here that the impugned eviction notice has been issued by following the procedure contemplated under the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioner gave his reply and thereafter the impugned eviction notice was passed on 27.05.2026, giving the petitioner 7 days time to evict. The procedure contemplated under the Act, having been scrupulously followed, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned eviction notice.

10.It is pertinent to note here the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 121, wherein it was held that if the encroachment is of a recent origin, there is no need even for the authorities to issue notice on the ground of principles of natural justice, since no one has the right to encroach upon public property. Admittedly, the petitioner’s construction is of recent origin and therefore as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he has no right to claim the procedure of opportunity of hearing, since in the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it will be “tedious and time consuming process leading to putting a premium for the high-handed and unauthorised acts of encroachment and unlawful squatting”.

11.At this juncture, useful reference can be made to the judgment in the case of Tiruchirapallil Palporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam (Teppakulam Unit) vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirapalli, reported in 1998 (II) CTC 610. The Division Bench of this Court held that an encroacher is not entitled to seek redressal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since the said article can be invoked only to protect existing right and not to confer any new right and also that public authority cannot be prevented from discharging its statutory duty. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “When a statute contemplates an obligatory duty on the part of the authority to do a particular thing for preservation of public property for public use, any direction against such statute amounts to scuttling a statutory duty. It is not proper for the Court to direct any party much less a statutory authority not to perform its duties even on humanitarian grounds.”

12.The petitioner seeks sympathy of this Court by placing reliance upon the fact that his son is serving the nation as army Jawan. This Court has the highest regard for, duly acknowledges the sacrifice, dedication and service rendered by the person in the armed force in safeguarding the Nation. However, the admiration for such service cannot translate into a relaxation of legal standards or confer a special dispensation in judicial proceedings. The Courts are governed by constitutional principles and rule of law and not by sentiment. The sympathy, however, compelling cannot be permitted to supplant legal principles or dilute the application of a law.

13.Before parting with this case, this Court considers it necessary to record its displeasure at the unrelishable practice of placing documents in the type-set of papers without any foundational pleadings in the writ affidavit, apparently in an attempt to circumvent the consequences of suppression and to project as though all material facts have been disclosed. In our view, the Registry should not entertain any documents placed in the type-set not adverted to in the writ affidavit or where foundational facts are not pleaded.

14.In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the writ petition is misconceived, unsustainable and meritless. Hence, this Court finds no warrant to interfere with the impugned eviction notice. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(DR.G.J.J.) (N.M.J)
15.06.2026
dsn
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Internet:Yes

To
1.The District Collector,
A Block, 2nd Floor,
Collectorate,
Vellore – 632009

2.The District Revenue Officer,
1st Floor, ‘A’ Block,
District Collectorate Campus,
Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632009

3.The District Forest Officer,
Vellore Forest Division,
Vellore Division Fort,
Vellore 632 004.

4.The Revenue Inspector, Gudiyatham (East)
Taluk Office Campus,
143 & 144, Railway Station Road,
Arunachala Nagar,
Gudiyatham, 632 602.

5.The Tahsildar, Gudiyatham,
Taluk Office Campus,
143 & 144, Railway Station Road,
Arunachala Nagar,
Gudiyatham, 632 602.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
N.MALA,J.
dsn

Order in W.P.No.21097 of 2026

15.06.2026