Dismissed¶36

Annadurai Kannadhasan, v. the Chairman

Madras HC18 Sept 2025WP/17349/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 refused where petitioner already holds a civil court decree; proper course is execution of the decree, not a fresh writ; ex-parte decree in O.S.No.161 of 2010 (District Munsif, Tambaram, dated 21.01.2011) with interlocutory application to set aside pending; TANGEDCO/TNEB respondents; 354 sq.ft. vacant government land in S.No.646 claimed as pathway to S.No.645; writ petition dismissed with liberty to work out remedy, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; High Court of Madras, decided 18.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.19661 of 2025) closed. ¶36

Annadurai Kannadhasan, Vs the Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.19661 of 2025) closed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can issue directing the TNEB respondents to declare 354 sq.ft. of vacant government land in S.No.646 as pathway to the petitioner's property in S.No.645, pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.161 of 2010. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Once the petitioner has obtained a decree from the trial court, it is for him to work out his remedies himself; the Court will not go into those aspects through the writ petition.

¶31

Key takeaways

The writ petition is misconceived.ratio¶31
The Court declined to enter into the aspects raised (including the respondents' contention on the ex-parte decree and the petitioner's failure to seek execution).ratio¶35
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law; no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.), 18.09.2025, W.P.No.17349 of 2025 (connected W.M.P.No.19661 of 2025): Petitioner Annadurai Kannadhasan, armed with a decree of the District Munsif, Tambaram in O.S.No.161 of 2010 dated 21.01.2011, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Chairman, TANGEDCO/TNEB and the Assistant Engineer, East Tambaram to declare 354 sq.ft. of vacant government land in S.No.646 as pathway to his property in S.No.645. In their counter affidavit the respondents stated that the decree was ex-parte and that an interlocutory application to set it aside was pending before the District Munsif. Holding that once a litigant has obtained a trial court decree he must work out his remedies himself and that the writ petition was therefore misconceived, the Court declined to go into those aspects and dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, without costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

W.P.No.17349 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.09.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.17349 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.19661 of 2025

¶8

Annadurai Kannadhasan

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Chairman,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) (TNEB), No.800, Annasalai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶13

2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1^st and 2^nd to take appropriate steps to declare the extent of 354 sq.ft. of vacant land in S.No.646 belonging to the government as pathway for the property situated in S.No.645 in compliance with the order passed by Court of District Munsif, Tambaram in O.S.No.161 of 2010 dated 21.01.2011.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Muzhammil

¶16

Page No.1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel *****

¶19

W.P.No.17349 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Though the petitioner is armed with a decree in his favour granted

¶22

by the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, as filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus on the respondents 1 and 2 to declare an extent of 354 sq.ft. of land in S.No.646, belonging to the government as pathway of the property situated in S.No.645.

¶23

2. The petitioner's mother had purchased an extent of 1 acre and

¶24

72 cents in Survey No.645 at Madambakkam Village. She settled her property to all the five sons; each entitled to about 0.25 cents. S.No.646, the adjoining property was lying vacant and the said property was Government poromboke land.

¶25

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board constructed a new sub-station in S.No.646. According to the petitioner, the access to his property was blocked because of the construction of the sub-station. Claiming his right for a pathway, the

¶26

Page No.2 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.17349 of 2025

¶29

petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.161 of 2010 before the District Munsif, Tambaram and the said suit was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for electricity service connection before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, for which, the authorities had stated to the petitioner that if he drops the claim for access through S.No.646, then the electricity service connection will be issued. Seeking for a direction to respondents to declare S.No.646 as government pathway, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

4. The 2 nd respondent had filed a detailed counter affidavit,

¶31

wherein it is stated that decree obtained by the petitioner was an ex-parte decree and the respondents were never given a chance to putforth their case. The 2 nd respondent has also stated that an Interlocutory Application has been filed by the respondents before the District Munsif, Tambaram to set aside the ex-parte decree and the same is now pending. Be that as it may, this writ petition is misconceived. Once the petitioner has obtained a decree from the trial court, it is for him to workout his remedies. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in the affidavit as to why he did not choose to file an execution petition to execute the decree. This Court is

¶32

Page No.3 of 6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.17349 of 2025

¶35

not inclined to go into all these aspects.

¶36

5. The Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

18.09.2025

¶38

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp

¶39

Page No.4 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.17349 of 2025

¶42

¶43