Disposed¶45

M.Prakash v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WP/23408/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.23408 of 2025; Madras High Court; Article 226; writ of mandamus (printed 'Madamus'); encroachment removal; Government Poramboke land Road and Ditch; T.S.No.5 and 9/1 Block No.7 Ayanavaram; Dr.Ambedkar Nagar New Avadi Road ICF Chennai; Tahsildar Ayanavaram; Zonal Officer Zone 8 Greater Chennai Corporation; private respondents claiming tenancy lawful possession; survey report 29.08.2025; notice and opportunity of hearing; disposal without costs; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava CJ; G.Arul Murugan J; 01.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without adjudication on the encroachment claim; operative directions that any Corporation notice to the private respondents would entitle them to raise all available defences and receive a hearing before an appropriate order; no order as to costs. ¶45

M.Prakash Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents should be directed (by writ of madamus) to remove the alleged unauthorised and illegal encroachments made by respondents 3 to 5 on Government Poramboke land classified as Road and Ditch, T.S.No.5 and 9/1, Block No.7, Ayanavaram Town and Taluk, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, New Avadi Road, ICF, Chennai 38. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Taking into consideration that a survey had been conducted and the proceedings were in contemplation, the Court was not inclined to keep the petition pending and disposed it of.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

If the Corporation proceeds to issue notice to the private respondents, they will be entitled to raise all grounds and defences available to them under law, and after giving them an opportunity of hearing the Corporation shall pass such order as may be considered appropriate, as early as possible.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madras HC, disposed 01.09.2025): Petitioner sought a writ of madamus directing the Tahsildar, Ayanavaram and the Zonal Officer, Zone 8, Greater Chennai Corporation to remove alleged unauthorised encroachments by respondents 3 to 5 on Government Poramboke land classified as Road and Ditch (T.S.No.5 and 9/1, Block No.7, Ayanavaram). State counsel reported a completed survey identifying encroachments, communicated to the Corporation on 29.08.2025; the Corporation undertook to draw proceedings and issue notices to the alleged encroachers, while respondents 3 to 5 claimed to be tenants in lawful possession. As proceedings were in contemplation, the Bench (Shrivastava, CJ for the Court, with G.Arul Murugan, J.) disposed of the petition, directing that if notices issue, the private respondents may raise all available grounds and defences and must be heard before the Corporation passes any order. No order as to costs. No substantive ruling on possession or encroachment.

¶1

W.P.No.23408 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.09.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.P.No.23408 of 2025

M.Prakash

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Tahsildar Ayanavaram Taluk Chennai 600 102.

¶14

The Zonal Officer Zone 8 Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai 600 030.

¶15

Narayanan

¶16

Selvam

¶17

Leebans Raj .. Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Madamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to remove the unauthorised and illegal encroachments made by the respondents 3 to 5 on the Government Poramboke land classified as

¶19

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.23408 of 2025

¶22

Road and Ditch, comprised in T.S.No.5 and 9/1, Block No.7, Ayanavaram Town and Taluk situated at Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, New Avadi Road, ICF, Chennai 38.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shanmugam

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for Respondent-1

¶25

Mr.A.Arun Babu Standing Counsel for Respondent-2

¶26

Mr.K.Balaji for Respondents 3 to 5

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

Learned State counsel, at the outset, would submit that

¶31

survey has been conducted and certain encroachments have been found, which have been duly informed to the Commissioner of

¶32

Corporation, on 29.08.2025, for taking appropriate action.

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.23408 of 2025

¶36

Learned counsel for Corporation submits that upon receipt of the report, appropriate proceedings shall be drawn and notice will be issued to the persons who are alleged to be encroachers.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 would

¶38

submit that respondents 3 to 5 are not encroachers, but are tenants and that they are in possession under valid authority of law.

¶39

Be that as it may, taking into consideration that some

¶40

survey has been conducted and the proceedings are in contemplation, we are not inclined to keep this petition, but to dispose it of.

¶41

In case the Corporation proceeds to issue notice to private respondents, private respondents will be entitled to raise all grounds and defences which are available to them under law and after giving them opportunity of hearing, the Corporation shall pass such order as may be considered appropriate, as early as possible.

¶42

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.23408 of 2025

¶45