Judgment :- Dharma Rao Elipe, J. Learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.02.2007, passed by the second respondent, who is the elected president of the Vachakaranpatti Village Panchayat in the local body elections held on 13.10.2006, with regard to removal of the petitioners Aavin Milk Shop situated in a portion of the land in Survey No.156, which is classified as road poramboke, within a period of two days. 3. According to the petitioner, on 06.08.2004 he was appointed as an agent to distribute Aavin Milk Products in and around R.R.Nagar, for which purpose some extent of land in Survey Number 156 of the village was allotted to him. On 09.09.2004, the District Collector inaugurated the shop and thereafter he is running the shop. As some area of the land in Survey No.156 was in need for road expansion and his shop was about to be removed, he made a request to the second respondent for allotting some other land and on 19.09.2006 the second respondent also allotted the present area in the same survey number. Now, the newly elected President of the village, by his impugned order, directed the petitioner to remove the shop, which he constructed, within two days on the ground that he has constructed the shop without permission and further the land is classified as road poramboke and the same is required for construction of shops and toilets. 4. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present writ petition has been filed contending that due licence was granted to the petitioner to run the shop by the second respondent panchayat and the licence is valid upto 05.08.2007. Further it is submitted that it is not correct to state that the petitioner has constructed the shop in the land in question without prior permission of the panchayat, as such the second respondent on 19.09.2006 gave permission. It is further stated that giving two days time to remove the alleged encroachment, without giving any prior notice, is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that giving two days time to remove the alleged encroachment, without giving any prior notice, is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the president of the village panchayat has no power under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 to pass the impugned order, since as per Section 131(2) of the Act the power is vested with the Executive Officer of the panchayat or the Commissioner of the Pnahcyat Union Council. Therefore, the president has no power to pass the impugned order, unless and until the members of the panchayat council enabling the president pass a resolution, he cannot take any decision. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned is non-est in the eye of law and it is liable to be quashed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised attacking the impugned order, we went through the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (in short "the Act"). Chapter-V of the Act deals with the powers and duties of the Executive Authority. As per Section 83 of the Act, 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. Section 84 of the Act contemplates the functions of executive authority. The executive authority shall carry into effect the resolutions of the village panchayat, control all the officers and servants of the village panchayat and discharge all the duties specifically imposed and exercise all the powers conferred on him and subject to all restrictions and conditions imposed, by or under the Act, exercise the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and he is directly responsible for the due fulfilment of the purposes thereof. 6. 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. 7. Further, Section 131 of the Act prohibits obstructions in or over public roads, etc. Hence, in this case, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is illegal. 7. Further, Section 131 of the Act prohibits obstructions in or over public roads, etc. According to Section 131(1)(a), no person shall, except as permitted by rules made under the Act and except in accordance with the conditions imposed by any licence made requisite by such rules build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projection or make any encroachment whatsoever, whether permanent or temporary, in or over any public road or any property vested in or belonging to or regulated or owned by a village panchayat or panchayat union council. Sub-Section 2 of Section 131 mandates that it shall be the duty of the Village Administrative Officer of every revenue village to report on encroachments on properties vested in village panchayats or panchayat union councils to the executive authority or the commissioner concerned and to the officer of the Revenue Department, and it shall be the duty of the executive authority or the commissioner concerned either suo motu or on obtaining a report from the Village Administrative Officer in this regard to institute proceedings under the Act and secure the removal of the encroachments within such time as may be specified by the Government by general or special order and if the removal of the encroachments has not been secured within the period specified in such order, the officers of the Revenue Department shall institute proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and secure such removal. 8. Therefore, if the second respondent found that the petitioner has established his hop in the road poramboke, they should have resorted to follow the procedures contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 131 of the Act, that too action has to be initiated as per the report of the Village Administrative Officer to the Executive Authority of the Village or the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union Council, as the case may be. Further, if the above said authorities failed to take action and secured such removal, then the Revenue Department has got the power to institute proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to secure such removal. 9. Further, if the above said authorities failed to take action and secured such removal, then the Revenue Department has got the power to institute proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to secure such removal. 9. Without resorting to any one of the methods prescribed under the provisions of the Act, the second respondent has assumed the power of the executive authority of the panchayat and passed the order impugned in this writ petition, which is liable to be quashed for lack of power and jurisdiction. Further the period of two days time given in the impugned order directing the petitioner to remove his shop is unreasonable. Considering the same, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 01.02.2003. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 is closed.