Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar, J. This writ petition has been filed seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to his proceedings in No.Nil dated 02.07.2007, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the tin shed put up by the petitioner abutting the Sub-Registrar Office on its north in Pandalkudi, encroaching upon the property vested with the Panchayat Board and quash the same. 2. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that of the learned Special Government Pleader, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, an extent of 20 square metres of land in Survey No.107/580 of Pandalkudi Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District was assigned to her by the Tahsildar of Aruppukottai in his proceedings H.S.T. 152/2005-2006/A3 dated 04.07.2005. As the President of Pandalkudi Panchayat raised objections for the assignments made in favour of the petitioner and four other persons, show cause notices were issued to all of them by the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai on 12.11.2005 calling upon them to show cause why the assignment should not be cancelled. The petitioner and the other assignees submitted their objection. However the assignments made in favour of the assignees, including the petitioner, were cancelled by the Tahsildar in his proceedings dated 22.02.2006. Pursuant to the cancellation of the assignment, the President of Pandalkudi Panchayat/the second respondent herein chose to issue the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the tin shed put up by her in the above said land stating that the same was an encroachment made on the property belonging to the panchayat. Without challenging the order of cancellation of assignment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the above said impugned notice of the second respondent dated 02.07.2007. 4. Without challenging the order of cancellation of assignment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the above said impugned notice of the second respondent dated 02.07.2007. 4. Reiterating the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notice of the second respondent was vitiated for the following reasons: "(i) The power vested with the executive authority of the panchayat under Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 could not be exercised by the President of the panchayat; (ii) As per Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the revenue officials alone are competent to remove the encroachments; and (3) Without receiving a report from the concerned Village Administrative officer, the executive authority of the panchayat could not take proceedings for the removal of encroachments." 5. In support of the first contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court made in V. Balamurugan vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and another reported in (2007(3) CTC 56). Of course, it is true that the earlier Division Bench of this Court, in the above said judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held that the President of the panchayat, who is an elected person, cannot exercise the powers conferred on the executive authority of the village panchayat. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted here under, for the sake of convenience: "Therefore, as per Sections 83 and 84 of the Act, the executive power of the village panchayat is vested with the executive authority and therefore the president, who is an elected person, cannot exercise the powers conferred with the executive authority of the village panchayat. Hence, in this case, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is illegal." 6. With due respect to the earlier Division Bench of this Court which made the above said observation, we express our inability to concur with the above said view. Executive authority of village panchayat has been defined under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 as follows: "The Government may, by notification, appoint any person, who shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the executive authority of a village panchayat." 7. Executive authority of village panchayat has been defined under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 as follows: "The Government may, by notification, appoint any person, who shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the executive authority of a village panchayat." 7. The Government in fact, exercising the power conferred upon him by Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, has issued a notification in G.O.Ms.No.225 Rural Development (C1) Department dated 15.10.1996 appointing the President of the panchayat as executive authority to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the executive authority of that village panchayat. Admittedly, the said G.O. was not brought to the notice of the earlier Division Bench. Had it been brought to its notice, the decision of the Division Bench would have been otherwise. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur [ 1989 (1) SCC 101 ], as follows: "A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute." Relying on the above mentioned observation of the Honourable Supreme Court, we are constrained to hold that the above said observations made in ignorance of the existence of the above said notification by the earlier Division Bench is per incurium and hence cannot constitute a valid precedent binding on this Bench. 8. For all the reasons stated above, we hold that the second respondent/President of the village panchayat, in his capacity as the executive authority of the village panchayat, has got every power to take action under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 for the removal of encroachments made in or over the properties vested with the panchayat. 9. Thesecond and third grounds raised by the petitioner for challenging the impugned notice also do not have any merit in them. 9. Thesecond and third grounds raised by the petitioner for challenging the impugned notice also do not have any merit in them. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the alleged encroachments in or over the properties vested with or belonging to the panchayat is vested with the revenue authorities and not with the executive authority/President of the village panchayat as per Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu panchayats Act, 1994; that even assuming that the executive authority/President has such power, the same has to be exercised only based on a report of the Village Administrative Officer concerned about the encroachment and that the executive authority/President of the panchayat cannot take suo motu action in the absence of any such report from the Village Administrative Officer. 10. We do not find any substance in the above said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A reading of Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu panchayats Act, 1994 will make it abundantly clear that not only a power to remove encroachments made in or over the properties vested with or belonging to the panchayat is conferred on the executive authority of the panchayat but also a duty is cast upon the executive authority of the panchayat to secure the removal of such encroachments. The section specifically provides that it shall be the duty of the executive authority to initiate proceedings under the Act either suo motu or an obtaining a report from the Village Administrative Officer to remove such encroachments and secure the removal of encroachments. 11. It is obvious from the contents of Section 131(2) of the Tamil Nadu panchayats Act, 1994 that the later part of the same casts a duty on the revenue officials designated in this regard to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 to secure the removal of such encroachments, if there is failure on the part of the executive authority to secure the removal of the encroachment within the period specified by the State Government by general or special notification. The mere fact that the revenue officials are enjoined with a duty to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905 on the failure of the executive authority of the panchayat to secure the removal of the encroachment within a specified period cannot be interpreted to mean the extinguishment of such a power or obligation of the executive authority of the village panchayat to secure the removal of encroachment in or over the properties vested with the panchayat. Therefore, the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got to be discountenanced. 12. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice can be countenanced and that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs.