R.Muthukrishnan Vs the Chairman

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2025.

¶21

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

¶22

1/14

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

For petitioner

Mr. S. Murugan

ORDER

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)

¶28

Captioned main 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a mandamus prayer qua a representation dated 03.01.2025 sent by writ petitioners to R1.

¶29

Mr. S. Murugan, learned counsel for writ petitioners, adverting to said representation, submits that the writ petitioners are encroachers and the encroachment is by way of occupation of Government poramboke land classified as 'cart track'.

¶30

From the submissions made by learned counsel for writ

¶31

petitioners, the case file and our perusal of the e-Court website, it comes to light that there are as many as six earlier writ petitions on this subject and the details are as follows:

¶32

S. No.	W.P. No.	Name of Writ Petitioner	Prayer	Status/order
1	30404 of 2015	Muthukrishnan Shanmugam Anna Durai Muthu Sivalingam Harikrishnan Renugadevi Neduncheziyan Suresh	Challenging G.O.Ms.No.252, Revenue [LD6(20)] Department dated 08.07.2015 and for mandamus to first respondent to reclassify Enjambakkam Village S.No.253/2, 27 cents Cart-Track poramboke into Anatheenam poramboke as per Revenue Standing Order 26 Rule 11 and regularize their houses and granting assignment of house site patta to the petitioners.	Disposed of on 25.01.2016

¶33

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

2/14

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

S.
No.
2

S. No.	W.P. No.	Writ Petitioner	Prayer	Status/order
2	40317 of 2016	Pon. Thangavelu	Mandamus to RR 1 and 5 to remove encroachments in public road, Vettuvankeni, Injambakkam, Link Road in S.No.253/2 (Government poramboke cart road) in Chennai Corporation Zone XV, Corporation Division No.196 situtated in Chennai Corporation limits	Dismissed on 17.11.2016
3	5609 of 2018	Pon. Thangavelu	Mandamus to RR 1 & 2 to clear all the encroachments in the Government land in Survey No.247 249 253/2 of Injambakkam Village encroached by RR 3 to 17	Adjourned to 12.09.2023 on 11.09.2023
4	26900 of 2023	Parthasarathy Durai	Mandamus forbearing RR 1 & 2 from evicting the petitioner from the property situated in Door No. 2/187, Hanuman Colony, comprised in S.No.249, Injambakkam Village in Sholinganallur Taluk in Chennai District without following the due process of law.	----
5	21775 of 2024	Pon. Thangavelu	Mandamus to RR 1 to 4 to consider petitioner's representations dated 10.08.2022 16.11.2022, 18.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 for implementing the drainage and drinking water scheme for which work contract has been issued and to remove all such encroachments made by the Respondents 5 to 20 in Injambakkam Vettuvankeni Link Road, Hanuman Colony (Rajan Nagar 1^st, 2^ndand 3^rdStreets), Injambakkam.	Notice ordered to RR 7,9,13 to 16 and 20 on 18.09.2024

¶38

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

¶39

3/14

¶40

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶41

S. No.	W.P. No.	Writ Petitioner		Prayer		Status/order
6	39412 of 2024	Muthukrishnan, Shanmugam, Muthu, Annadurai, Nedunchezian, Hasir, Josephin Malathy, Harikrishnan, Renugadevi and Kamaraj	Challenging 12.12.2024	notice	dated	Dismissed on 27.12.2024

¶42

Learned counsel for writ petitioners refers to a writ petition filed by writ petitioners immediately prior to the captioned WP and that is W.P.No.39412 of 2024. In W.P.No.39412 of 2024, writ petitioners have assailed a notice dated 12.12.2024 bearing reference M.A.15.Na.Ka.No.B2/05343/2023 issued by R2 before us (R4 in that writ petition) i.e., Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation (hereinafter 'GCC' for the sake of brevity). In and by order dated 27.12.2024, the earlier writ petition (W.P.No.39412 of 2024 along with WMPs thereat), came to be dismissed by another Hon'ble Division Bench. We deem it appropriate to reproduce said order which is reported in 2024:MHC:4232 (Neutral Citation), we do so and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶43

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

¶44

4/14

¶45

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶46

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

¶47

5/14

¶48

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶49

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

¶50

6/14

¶51

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶52

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

¶53

7/14

¶54

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶55

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

¶56

8/14

¶57

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶58

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

¶59

9/14

¶60

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶61

A perusal of the aforementioned order brings to light inter

¶62

alia the following points:

¶63

i. Writ petitioners are 'admittedly' encroachers qua Government poramboke land classified as 'cart track' ( vide paragraph 6);

¶64

ii. Encroachment made by writ petitioners is an impediment and obstruction for development projects such as road widening which are in public interest ( vide paragraph 2);

¶65

iii. Writ petitioners, in an earlier writ petition (W.P.No.30404 of 2015), have given an undertaking that they will vacate their houses on notice of commencement of road widening project ( vide paragraph 3); and

¶66

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

10/14

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

iv.

iv. If the writ petitioners are landless poor and they have no other property or source of income, they are at liberty to submit an application seeking alternative accommodation to R1 before us and R1 before us, shall, in turn, consider the same as per eligibility on payment of required charges and as per rules in force ( vide paragraph 6).

¶71

This Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for writ petitioners legal right (if any) which the writ petitioners have. This Court wanted to know if the writ petitioners trace their request for alternative accommodation to any executive fiat such as Government Order or any other rules in force. Learned counsel for writ petitioners was unable to point out any such legal right or executive fiat.

¶72

In the scenario set out thus far, i.e., in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court notices that the other Hon'ble Division Bench, vide order dated 27.12.2024, has already made it clear that R1 can consider request of writ petitioners for alternative accommodation as per eligibility, on payment of required charges and as per rules in force. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no need really to add to the same.

¶73

Be that as it may, in the light of the narrative thus far, it is clear that the pendency of said representation will not, in any way, aid writ petitioners to continue to squat in the encroached land. Removal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/14

¶74

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

¶75

of encroachment will continue in accordance with law, writ petitioners

¶76

having been show caused and their challenge to the notice having failed and attained a legal quietus.

¶77

Ergo , the sequitur is, captioned main WP fails to pass muster in the Admission Board and therefore, the same is dismissed. Captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' (hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity) thereat also perishes with the captioned main WP. In other words, captioned WMP thereat is also dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of submissions, we refrain from imposing costs.

¶78

(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 05.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes cad

¶79

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

12/14

W.P. No.2944 of 2025

To