Dismissed¶¶35

Sasikala v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WP/22125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.22125 of 2023, decided 14.10.2025 by M. Dhandapani, J. Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; maintainability; failure to challenge eviction notice dated 10.07.2023; representation dated 13.07.2023; encroachment of 866.82 sq. ft. open space; no allotment order; Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board; Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board; Washermenpet, Chennai; widow petitioner; patta application pending; demolition of roof; petition dismissed with liberty to pursue legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with no costs, but liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the eviction notice in the manner known to law (see ¶36). ¶¶35

Sasikala Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.22125 of 2023

¶7

Sasikala ... petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division-II, Chennai.

¶11

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Nandanam, Chennai.

¶12

The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Division – II, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance

¶14

of Writs of Mandamus direct the second to fourth respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.07.2023 consequently, directs the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property situated at No.42, Poondithangammal Street, New Washermenpet, Chennai.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.N.Marimuthu

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan, AGP R1 Mr.G.Sivakumar, RR2 to 4

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second to fourth respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.07.2023 consequently, directs the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property situated at No.42, Poondithangammal Street, New Washermenpet, Chennai.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a widow aged about 58 years residing at No.42, Poondithangammal street, New Washermenpet, Chennai for the past 40 years with his family. In the meantime her husband Nagalaingam died on 24.10.2021, thereafter the petitioner was peacefully living in the above mentioned address. During her husband's life time, the petitioner's husband has applied for patta before the Revenue Authority and now is in process. Moreover, the Government had assigned the house number as No.42 for

¶22

the petitioner for the other occupants, the TNEB has given an electricity

¶23

th connection in her name. That being so, the 4 respondent had given a notice on 10.07.2023 neither with any reference number nor with any valid documents and threatened the petitioner to vacate her house, otherwise with police force the petitioner's house will be demolished within 7 days from the receipt of the notice.

¶24

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

¶25

3 Therefore, the petitioner has made a representation on 13.07.2023 directs the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property situated at No.42, Poondithangammal Street, New Washermenpet,

¶26

th Chennai and the same is not considered. The 4 respondent entered into the petitioner's house and started to demolish the petitioner's house and remove the petitioner's house roof, without considering the petitioner's representation. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was

¶28

th peacefully living in the said address for the past 40 years, the 4 respondent without any due process of law, threatened the petitioner to vacate the possession. There was no show cause notice or any other intimation from the Government till date apart from this notice.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the petitioner is a land encroacher, she encroached the vacant land of the third respondent. The third respondent has issued notice on 10.07.2023 to the petitioner to remove the encroachment. Without challenging the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

Though the petitioner has claimed that she is possession and enjoyment

¶34

of the above said property for the past 40 years. The petitioner has encroached to an extent of 866.82 sq. ft. of open space area. However, she has not produced any allotment order before this Court and enjoying the property of the third respondent, which is not sustainable. The respondent has issued notice to the petitioner to evict the premises. Without challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed mandamus, which is not maintainable.

¶35