ORDER : [M. SUNDAR, J.] Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus. In and vide the certiorari limb, an order/notice signed on 06.03.2025 by R7 (Tahsildar) {hereinafter 'impugned order/notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity} has been assailed. To be noted, the impugned order/notice has been made under Section 6 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' (for brevity 'said 1905 Act'). In and vide the mandamus limb, the writ petitioner has sought a consequent direction to the first four of the seven official respondents {to be precise, RR 1 to 4} to grant permission to the writ petitioner to live in the same place, i.e., S.No.729 in Sundaravilagam Village, Tiruvarur Taluk, Tiruvarur District (hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity). 2. Mr. M. Rajasekaran, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, adverting to the impugned order/notice, submits that the impugned order/notice shows that it was preceded by a notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act but no such notice was received by the writ petitioner. 3. Issue notice to respondents. 4. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all the seven respondents and submits, on instructions, that Section 7 notice was served on the writ petitioner, writ petitioner did not respond and therefore, the impugned order/notice came to be made by R7. 5. We find that the scope of the captioned main WP is fairly limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and learned State counsel for respondents, captioned main WP was taken up in the Admission Board i.e., Motion List. 6. The first point is, signature in the copy of Section 7 notice (signature of noticee) as placed before us by learned State counsel and the signature in the writ affidavit are at complete variance. To be noted, a scanned reproduction of the copy of the Section 7 notice, as placed before us by learned State counsel, is as follows: 7. We hasten to add that we find the signatures at variance even to the naked eye. Further, in one case, there is no signature at all. We find that the variance is so striking that it warrants our interference. We hasten to add that we find the signatures at variance even to the naked eye. Further, in one case, there is no signature at all. We find that the variance is so striking that it warrants our interference. Therefore, we make it clear that this order is made in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand and it will not serve as a precedent for all matters. 8. The second point is, the impugned order/notice does not mention that the writ petitioner has not responded to the Section 7 notice. 9. In the above circumstances, learned State counsel very fairly submitted that the impugned order/notice will now stand withdrawn but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the respondents and more particularly R7, to issue notice afresh under Section 7 of said 1905 Act. While we accede to this request, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner will also stand preserved. 10. Learned counsel for writ petitioner further submitted that if the Section 6 order/notice that is made afresh is adverse to the writ petitioner, writ petitioner shall file a statutory appeal under Section 10 of said 1905 Act, together with a stay petition thereat under Section 10-B and pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 10 without approaching this Court. 11. In the light of the narrative thus far, the following order is made: i. The impugned order/notice dated 06.03.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.no.5635/2024/A3 stands withdrawn; ii. The aforementioned Section 7 notice shall be construed to have been served on the writ petitioner today (27.03.2025); iii. The writ petitioner shall send a response to the Section 7 notice (if so advised and if so desired) in such a manner that it reaches R7 in a fortnight from today i.e., by 10.04.2025; iv. Thereafter, R7 shall consider the response of the writ petitioner and pass/issue order/notice afresh under Section 6 of said 1905 Act; v. If the writ petitioner does not respond to Section 7 notice on or before 10.04.2025 in the aforesaid manner, it will be open to R7 to proceed further on the basis of available records; vi. All the rights and contentions of both sides are preserved and all questions are left open; vii.This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. All the rights and contentions of both sides are preserved and all questions are left open; vii.This Court has repeatedly held that said 1905 Act is a self contained Code. The reason inter alia is that there is a provision to have the alleged encroacher show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act followed by an order (considering the cause shown). The order under Section 6 is appealable under Section 10 (District Collector is the appellate authority) and there is a provision for further revision to the Government under Section 10-A (Section 10-A(3) to be precise) of said 1905 Act. Pending appeal / revision, there is a provision for making interim prayer vide Section 10-B of said 1905 Act. Therefore, said 1905 Act is a self contained Code in every sense of the expression. viii.Though obvious, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion or view one way or other qua alleged encroachment. 12. Captioned main WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner with the aforesaid directives, observations and preservation of rights and contentions of both sides. Consequently, captioned writ miscellaneous petition thereat is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.