Case Title: Gunasekaran v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: W.P.No.3002 of 2018
Decided on: 23rd November, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Introduction
The Madras High Court while a plea by the petitioner contesting that Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is void and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution of India ruled that Articles 19 and 21 do not extend their shield to individuals in unauthorized occupation of land when eviction is lawfully executed.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, the petitioner contends that Section 6 of the 1905 Act violates the right to shelter since it denies the petitioner and others their right to reside, despite the right to shelter being a basic right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner contends that Section 6 of the 1905 Act is null and unconstitutional due to the application of Article 13 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims that the Governor has not approved the Act after the Constitution went into effect since it predates the Constitution and does not comply with the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution.
Additionally, the petitioner highlights that only government lands are covered by Section 6 of the 1905 Act, which is discriminatory. On the other hand, parties seeking eviction from private property must file a civil lawsuit. A Revenue Officer can evict someone without providing them with due process because of the discriminatory nature of Section 6’s hasty eviction procedure. The argument is that the Limitation Act of 1963 should apply similarly to both government and private lands, and that treating them differently violates the right to equality. According to the petitioner, Section 6 has evolved into an irrational clause over time.
The respondents countered that the Apex Court’s ruling in Pandia Nadar and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu had already established the Act’s constitutional legitimacy and that the issue could not be brought up again.
Courts analysis and decision
The court agreed with the argument of the respondents, highlighting the fact that a provision cannot be contested on fresh grounds once the Supreme Court has upheld its legality. The claim that Article 13 had been violated was also rejected by the court as unjustified because there was no proof that the Act and the provisions under Part III of the Constitution were inconsistent.
The court further recognized that there is a distinct difference between those who occupy public and private properties in relation to the allegation of discrimination under the Act. It concluded that the Act’s quicker procedural steps were justified by the public interest in the prompt eviction of unregistered tenants from public property. This classification was deemed reasonable by the court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla
