Susila Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 6th respondent or

¶20

his men or agents from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property comprised in S.No. 81/1 situated at Molasi Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District under the guise of forming road without following due process of law and pass further or other orders.

¶21

Page No.2 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.25431 of 2025

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The present writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondents

¶26

to forbear the 6th respondent or his men or agents from, in any manner, interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property comprised in S.No. 81/1, situated at Molasi Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, under the pretext of forming a road without following due

¶27

process of law.

¶28

Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶29

takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. P.Harish, learned Government

¶30

Advocate takes notice for the 6th respondent.

¶31

By consent of both the counsels, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶32

The petitioner, along with her father Ramasamy Gounder and mother

¶33

Perumayee, owns agricultural lands measuring 5.16 acres, out of a total extent

¶34

of 23.48 acres, in S.No.81/1, having obtained the same under a partition deed

¶35

dated 11.09.2007, registered as Document No.5153 of 2007 on the file of the Page No.3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.25431 of 2025 Sub-Registrar Office at Tiruchengode. The petitioner also possesses joint

¶38

Patta No.890 for S.No.81/1 along with other pattadars. The petitioner cultivates sugarcane and has also planted coconut trees in the said land, which is reflected in the adangal records.

¶39

In June 2025, the 6th respondent and his men attempted to encroach upon a portion of the petitioner’s patta lands under the pretext of road extension that too, without issuing any notice or following legal procedures. Despite the petitioner’s representation dated 17.05.2025, the 6th respondent's men continued to interfere with her peaceful possession. Hence, the petitioner

¶40

filed the present writ petition, seeking protection of her property rights.

¶41

Though many issues have been raised in the writ petition, learned

¶42

counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if, this Court directs

¶43

the 6th respondent to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶44

Page No.4 of 7

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.25431 of 2025

¶47

In view of the above facts and considering the limited relief sought

¶48

for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of

¶49

the case, I am inclined to direct the 6th respondent, to consider the petitioner's

¶50

representation dated 17.05.2025, by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51