PANDIA NADAR AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 30-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
333 
PANDIA NADAR AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
April 30, 197 4 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI 
AND P. N. BHAGWATI, JJ.] 
Taniil Nadu Land Encroachnu:nt Act, 1905, s. 6-Procr!dure 
for 
eviction 
if riolative of Art. 14. 
Notices were issued to the petitioners under s. 6 of the Tamil Nadu 
Land 
Encroachment Act, 1905, for evicting the petitioners and they challenged the 
constitutional validity of the Act on the basis of the decision in Northern lndia 
Caterers v. Puniab. [19671 3 S.C.R. 399. 
Dismissing the petitions, 
HELD: Under the Tamil Nadn Act s. 2 defines 'property of government', s. 3 
Javs down that any 'person who shall unauthorisedly occupy any land which is 
th.e property of the Government shall be liable to pay the full assessment on the 
land, s.- 5 provides for further payment of penalty, and s. 6 provides for eviction 
of such person and for forfeiture of any crop or other product raised on the 
land and any building or other construction erected on the land. 
The eviction 
was to be 1:arried out by serving a notice as provided under s. 7 after giving him. 
reasonable time to vacate. There is a provision for appeal against the order of 
the Collector or other officer and there is also a provision for revision by the 
Government. 
Section 14 provides for a right of suit by any person deeming 
himself aggrieved by- any proceedings under the Act. 
This Court in Magan/al Chagganlal Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater 
Bo1nbay [19751 J S.C.R. 1 considered the constitutional validity of Chapter V-A 
of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and the 
Bombay 
Government 
Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, which provide for a 
special 
procedure 
for 
eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises. The Court observed that 
the mere availability of two procedures will not vitiate the special procedure and 
discussed the principles as to when the statute will not be hit by Art. 14. The 
Court then went on to point out that the procedures laid down by the two 
Acts were not so harsh or onerous as to suggest that a discrimination would 
result if resort was made to the provisions of these two Acts in some cases and 
to the ordinary civil court in others; and this decision would apply on all fours 
to the facts of the _present case. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 
243 to 246 of 
1970. 
Petition under Art. 32 o~ the Constitution. 
K. Jayaram and R. Chandrasekhar, for the petitioner. 
Rangam, N. S. Sivan and A. 
S. Govind Swaminathan, A. V. 
Subhashini, for the respondents. 
The Judgment c~ the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 
is impugned in these petitions as uncolllltitutional and void. 
Notices 
have been issued to the petitioners under section 6 of that Act in order 
to evict them from a certain piece of land claimed to be Government 
land. The challenge to the ccinstitutional validity of the Act is based 
solely on the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers 
v. 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORT,S 
[1975] 1 s.c.R. 
Punjab (1967 3 SCR 399). In that case the validity of the Punjab 
Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 
was under consideration. The State had leased its premises to the 
appellant therein for running a hotel and when the lease expired called 
upon him to hand civer vacant possession of the premises. On the 
appellant failing to do so the Collector issued a notice under s. 4 o! 
the Punjab Act requiring the appellant to show cause why an order 
of eviction should not be passed under s. 5. This Court while hc~ding 
that "there is an intelligible differentia between occupiers and that the 
classification has a reasonable relation to the object of the Act and 
does not offend Art. 14" also held that "s. 5 of the Act cqnfers an 
additional remedy over and above the remedy by way of suit and there-
by violates Art. 14 by providing two alternative remedies to the Gov-
ernment and in leaving it to the unguided discretion of the Cqllector to 
resort to one or the other and to pick and choose some of those in 
occupation cjf public properties and premises for the application of the 
more drastic procedure under s. 5." Two of the learned Judges who 
constituted the Bench, Hidayatullah and Bachawat, JJ. however held 
that "the unauthorised occupant is not denied equal protection of the 
laws merely because the Government has the qptio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.