Judgment :- By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The above writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned notice issued by the first respondent. In the impugned notice, the order dated 27.6.2005 passed in W.P. No. 20186 of 2000 and the circular issued by the second respondent in D1/23155/05 dated 19.7.2005 are referred to and it is further stated that the impugned notice has been is-sued as per the directions contained therein. The petitioner has been informed by the said notice that he had encroached into the water channel by putting up a construction and he was directed to voluntarily vacate the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice is challenged on the ground that no prior notice has been issued to the petitioner as per the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and reported in T. Ramaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (2) CTC 741 . 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the re­spondents, it is stated that the land in question is a Government poramboke and the im­pugned notice has been issued pursuant to the order dated 2.2.2005 passed in W.P. No. 689 of 2005. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned proceedings is only a notice. 4. Heard both sides. Mr. K. Jeganathan learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the guidelines laid down in Ramaraju T v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) is followed, the petitioner will not have any objection. In the said Full Bench judgment, one of the guide-lines laid down is that so far as the encroach­ment of the land belonging to the Government is concerned, action, if any, can be taken only by the appropriate Authority by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (herein-after referred to as the Act). Admittedly, the land in question is a Government poramboke and the Act applies to the same. In such a case, only the Authorities who are clothed with power under the Act alone can initiate action under the Act. 5. Admittedly, the land in question is a Government poramboke and the Act applies to the same. In such a case, only the Authorities who are clothed with power under the Act alone can initiate action under the Act. 5. Section 6(1) of the Act reads as follows: "Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assess­ment under Section 3 or Section 3-A may be summarily evicted by the Collector, or sub­ject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Dep­uty Tahsildar or any other Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the Au­thorised Officer) and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other con­struction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector, or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or by Dep­uty Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this Section shall be ad-judged by the Collector, or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector, or subject to his control, the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Author­ised Officer may direct." 6. Section 6(2) of the Act stipulates that an eviction under this Section shall be made in the manner provided therein. Section 6(2) of the Act contemplates serving of a notice under Section 7 of the Act on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent, requiring him within such time as the Collector or the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Authorised Officer may deem reasonable, after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land. 7. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: "Section 7. 7. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: "Section 7. Before taking proceedings un­der Section 6 the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any Authorised Officer or any other Officer specified by the State Government in this behalf (not being an Authorised Officer) (hereinafter referred to as the `Specified Officer’ as the case may be) shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorised occupation of land being the property of Government, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him w cause before a certain date why he not be proceeded against under Section 6.” 8. A reading of the above said provisions shows that a notice has to be issued Section 7 of the Act by the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any Authorised Officer or any other Officer specified by the State Government in that behalf. Likewise, an order for eviction can be passed under Section 6 of the Act only by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any Authorised Officer or any other Officer specified by the Government in that behalf. 9. In this case, the impugned proceedings has been issued by the Junior Engineer Public Works Department, Water Management, (Nee, AA, A), Parthipanoor, Mathaganai Division, Pa­ramakudi, Ramanathapuram District – the first respondent herein. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is nowhere stated that he has been authorized by the State Government to take action under Sections 7 and 6 of the Act, i.e., it is not averred in the counter affidavit that he is the Authorised Officer or Specified Officer under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act to initiate eviction proceedings under the Act. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to produce any proceedings issued by the State Government authorizing the first respondent to act as the Authorised Officer or Specified Officer under the Act. If the first respondent is not the Authorised Officer or Specified Officer to initiate proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. If the first respondent is not the Authorised Officer or Specified Officer to initiate proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. In the said circumstances, the following order is passed: “(i) It is made clear that it is open to the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any Authorised Officer or any other Officer specified by the State Government in that behalf to initiate action against the petitioner under the Act as per the guidelines laid down in the deci­sion reported in T. Ramaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) for evicting him; and (ii) If the first respondent is authorised by the State Government and he happens to be the Authorised Officer or Specified Officer then it is open for him also to issue proper notice under Section 7 of the Act and after passing of orders by competent Authorities under Section 6 of the Act, proceed further in the matter for evicting the petitioner by strictly following the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench decision in T. Ramaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). Till such time, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed." 11. With the above directions, the writ pe­tition is disposed of. No costs. W. P.M.P. No. 1407 of 2006 and W. V. M. P. No. 226 of 2006 are closed. Writ petition disposed of.