Judgment : 1. The petitioner had been served with a notice under Sec.7 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 on 5. 2000 and thereafter a final order was passed in accordance with Sec.6 of the said Act. Immediately thereafter the petitioners occupation was removed. The petitioner has submitted his objections on 5. 2000. Thereafter the final order was passed under Sec.6 of the said Act on 20.6.2000. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of the first respondent before the second respondent. The second respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner in his proceedings dated 28. 2000, the impugned proceedings. Now the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings of the eviction and for restoration of possession to the petitioner. 2. When the petitioner has been served with a notice under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the petitioners objections have been considered and a final order has been passed and it is also confirmed in the appeal finding that the petitioner is an encroacher, I am of the view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 152 has held as follows: “If the encroachment is of a recent origin the need to follow the procedure of principal of natural justice could be obviated in that no one has a right to encroach upon the public property and claim the procedure of opportunity of hearing which would be a tardious and time-consuming process leading to putting a premium for high-handed and un-authorised acts of encroachment and unlawful squatting. On the other hand, if the Corporation allows settlement of encroachers for along time for reasons best known to them, and reasons are not far to seek, then necessarily a modicum of reasonable notice for removal, say two weeks or 10 days, and personal service on the encroachers or substituted service by fixing notice on the property is necessary. If the encroachment is not removed within the specified time, the competent authority would be at liberty to have it removed. That would meet the fairness of procedure and principle of giving opportunity to remove the encroachment voluntarily by the encroachers. If the encroachment is not removed within the specified time, the competent authority would be at liberty to have it removed. That would meet the fairness of procedure and principle of giving opportunity to remove the encroachment voluntarily by the encroachers. On their resistance, necessarily appropriate and reasonable force can be used to have the encroachment removed.” From the above principle, it is clear that the encroachment, if of a recent origin, there was is no need for the authorities to issue a notice on the ground of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, if the encroachment exists for some time, then the encroacher is entitled for a notice, that too, to put on caution that he is an encroacher and he has to remove the articles from the encroached portion. Virtually, it means that he has to vacate the place. In case, if he does not do so, it is open to the authorities to evict the encroacher. This is what the authorities have done in this case. When the authorities have acted in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any illegality in the order. 4. When the notice has been issued under the Land Encroachment Act as held by the Supreme Court, it is for the encroacher to vacate the occupation and it is not open to them to challenge the notice and claim any right in respect of the place occupied by him. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned proceedings. 5. It may also be pertinent to note that the petitioner being, admittedly, an encroacher in the land, he is not entitled to come before this Court seeking for the redressal under Art.226 of the Indian Constitution, since it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the cased of Thiruchirapalli Palaporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam (Theppakulam Unit) by its President Mr.I.Kamal v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirapalli Thiruchirapalli Palaporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam (Theppakulam Unit) by its President Mr.I.Kamal v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirapalli Thiruchirapalli Palaporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam (Theppakulam Unit) by its President Mr.I.Kamal v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirapalli, (1999)1 MLJ. 264 : (1998)2 C.T.C. 610 that the jurisdiction under this Article can be invoked only to protect the existing right and not to confer a new right. 264 : (1998)2 C.T.C. 610 that the jurisdiction under this Article can be invoked only to protect the existing right and not to confer a new right. The encroacher having no existing right to occupy the place, this writ petition is mis-conceived. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.24591 and 24592 of 2000 are also dismissed.