ORDER Per K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. The petitioner has put in issue the notice, dated 1.11.2008, issued by the respondent, the Panchayat President of Pirampavayal, specifically involving Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and directing the petitioner to vacate from the alleged encroachment Survey Nos. 113/8, 112, 109, 108, 111, 110/15, 95/38 and 107/9 in Vediyangudi and give vacant possession of the land. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the president of the panchayat cannot, by any stretch of imagination, invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short "the Act") and issue notice under Section 7 of the Act, such notices can be issued only by the authorities contemplated under the statutory provisions in the Act. He would further submit that the said provision does not empower panchayat presidents, even in the capacity of the Executive Authority of Panchayats, to issue any notice under the Act. Apart from that, according to the learned counsel, president of a panchayat is elected as per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and therefore he could exercise powers only under the said Act and not by encroaching upon the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. 3. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the decision of this Court rendered in the case of (2008) 1 MLJ 1132 , squarely covers the issue in favour of the respondent. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, as per the above judgment, panchayat president/ Executive Authority can issue notice invoking the powers under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. 4. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record and also the judgment cited by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. We are not able to approve the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act reads as follows: "7. 4. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record and also the judgment cited by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. We are not able to approve the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act reads as follows: "7. Prior notice to person in occupation.- Before taking proceedings under Section 6 the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any authorised officer or any other office 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 to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under Section 6. ….." The above said statutory provision categorically says the persons who are vested with the power to issue notice under the Act. 6. The judgment relied upon by the learned Special Government Pleader, which has been rendered after taking into consideration the provisions of the Panchayat Act as well as the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, has stated in unequivocal terms, as under, in paragraphs 14 and 19. "14. A careful scrutiny of the aforementioned provision would go to show that the Executive Authority, even suo motu can institute proceedings under the Act and, in case he could not obtain the removal of encroachment, then, he has to refer the matter to the officers of the Revenue Department, who would shoulder the responsibility of initiating the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for securing the removal. The above 3aid provision of law is so clear, to arrive at a conclusion, as aforestated. ….. 19. After bestowing careful attention to the materials available and in the light of the G.O. passed, it is to be held that the Village Panchayat (sic) (President) is an Executive Authority and the said Executive Authority has got every power to issue notice to the encroachers. The provision does not authorise him to proceed to take forcible physical possession of the property from the encroachers. The provision does not authorise him to proceed to take forcible physical possession of the property from the encroachers. If he is unable to get possession from the encroachers on issuance of necessary notice, the Revenue Department would take up the job of initiating further action against the encroachers under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to obtain possession from them." 7. From the above, it is clear that panchayat president, as Executive Authority, cannot issue notice by invoking the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and it is for the Revenue Authorities to proceed further in the matter. Hence, we are of the view that the exercise of the respondent in issuing notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, which does not empower him to issue such a notice, has to be necessarily set aside and accordingly it is set aside. However, this order would not preclude the respondent from issuing notice under the Panchayat Act or to place the matter before the Revenue Authorities for proceeding further, if he is unable to get possession from the petitioner, for clearing the encroachment. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Connected M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2008 is closed. Petition allowed.