Judgment 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent comprised in the impugned order dated 07.12.2007 bearing Ref No. Na.Ka.66-2007A9 and consequential order dated 21.01.2008 bearing Ref. Na.Ka.66-2007A9 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind with consequential prayer to direct to the respondents to process the application as reiterated dated 20.12.2007 for assignment of the land and enter into a suitable deed in this regard. 2. This Court on 14.02.2013, passed the following order: "M/s. Madras Aluminium Co., Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notice dated 07.12.2007 and the consequential order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Namakkal, ordering removal of alleged encroachment by the petitioner. 2. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that the company was incorporated in the year 1965 with Italian Technology for manufacture of integrated aluminium. The company was declared sick in the year 1991 and thereafter was taken over by M/s. Anil Agarwal Associates, who revived the company. The petitioner was granted mining rights for bauxite in the year 1967. Since the date of allotment of mining rights, it has been carrying on mining operations according to laws in force. For purposes, the company constructed weigh bridge in the year1977. 3. The case of petitioner is that though the weigh bridge falls within the land belonging to petitioner, the respondent no.3 issued notice to the petitioner for removal of weight bridge on 07.12.2007. The petitioner company submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice, disputing the allegation, that the weight bridge is on encroached land. The company has rather claimed it to be under the ownership of the petitioner. 4. The further case of petitioner is that, inspite of detailed objections, the respondent no.3, without dealing with the objections raised by petitioner, passed a non-speaking impuged order, ordering the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the land by claiming it to be the Government land. 5. 4. The further case of petitioner is that, inspite of detailed objections, the respondent no.3, without dealing with the objections raised by petitioner, passed a non-speaking impuged order, ordering the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the land by claiming it to be the Government land. 5. It is not disputed between the parties, that the power to remove encroachment of Government land is regulated by the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and according to the Act, a person can be ordered to be evicted. Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 read as under: "6. Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc.:— (1) Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3 or Section3-A may be summarily evicted by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf (hereinafter referred as the Authorized 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 Deputy Tashildar or authorized Officer, may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized 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. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector or subject to his control, by the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorized 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. (2) An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely:—— By serving a notice in the manner provided in Section 7 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, and, if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstructed by any person, the Collector or the Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar or authorised officer shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a war rant for the arrest of the said person and on hi s appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar or authorised officer for such period not exceeding 30 days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form of the schedule for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for the like period” Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under Sections 183, 186 or 188 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same facts. (3) Any authorised officer taking proceedings under this section shall make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar having jurisdiction. 7. (3) Any authorised officer taking proceedings under this section shall make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar having jurisdiction. 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 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 to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under Section 6. Such notice shall be served in the manner prescribed in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, or in such other manner as the State Government by rules or orders under Section 8 may direct. Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in the case of any person unauthorisedly occupying any land, if he had been previously evicted from such land under section 6 or if he has previously vacated such land voluntarily after the receipt of a notice under section 5-B or under this Section: Provided further that where the notice under this section is caused to be served by any Revenue Inspector or any specified officer he shall require the person reputed to be in unauthorized occupation of the land to show cause against such notice to the Collector, Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar or authorised person having jurisdiction, as the case may be and shall also make a report in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in rules or orders made under section 8 to the Collector, Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar or authorised person having jurisdiction, as the case may be.” 6. The impugned order therefore is an order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, against which the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter, remedy of revision under Section 10(a) of the Act." 3. The impugned order therefore is an order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, against which the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter, remedy of revision under Section 10(a) of the Act." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the alternative remedy of appeal cannot be a bar to maintain this writ petition, as the impugned order is against the provisions of statute, as the respondents have failed to comply with the procedure as laid under Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The petitioner had filed application for allotment of land keeping in view the fact, that the land was being used as weigh bridge by petitioner for the last number of years. 5. The respondents, while rejecting the application for transfer of land, have ordered eviction, by invoking the provisions of the Act. The reading of the order prima facie shows, that the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, have not been followed. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned part of order, ordering eviction of petitioner is hereby quashed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by following the procedure laid down under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, if so advised. 7. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.