Dismissed¶39

P.K.Ganesan v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Nov 2025WP/40120/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition dismissed; Article 226 mandamus; alleged illegal construction by respondents 4 to 7; commercial building in predominantly residential area; Sundakamputhur Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore; representation dated 23.07.2025; notice issued 06.08.2025; Court found no inaction as local body proceedings initiated; proceedings left open to logical conclusion; petitioner at liberty to file civil suit for own-land grievance; no costs; W.P.No.40120 of 2025; W.M.P.No.45062 of 2025; Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava; Justice G. Arul Murugan.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; he remains at liberty to file a civil suit for any grievance concerning his own land; no order as to costs; interim application W.M.P.No.45062 of 2025 also dismissed. ¶39

P.K.Ganesan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent ought to be directed (by mandamus) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2025. +2 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner has any grievance as far as his own land is concerned, he is at liberty to take appropriate action by filing a suit.

¶38

Key takeaways

The local body had already issued a notice and proceedings had been initiated; therefore the situation cannot be said to be a case of inaction by the authorities.ratio¶39
There was no need to keep the petition pending; the petition was dismissed while keeping it open to the local authority to take its notice-drawn proceedings to their logical conclusion.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.40120 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, 03.11.2025; order made by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava with G. Arul Murugan on the bench): P. K. Ganesan petitioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the Coimbatore District Town and Country Planning Office (3rd respondent) to consider his representation dated 23.07.2025, to stop further construction by respondents 4 to 7 (Vivekanandan, Chitra, V. Priyadarshini, N. Akshaya), and to demolish the alleged illegal constructions in S.No.7/1A of Ward No. 88, Sundakamputhur Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District. The Court held that the allegation of inaction did not hold, since the local body had already issued a notice on 06.08.2025 and proceedings had been initiated; accordingly, the petition was dismissed, keeping it open to the local authority to carry those proceedings to their logical conclusion. For any grievance concerning the petitioner's own land, he was left at liberty to take appropriate action by filing a suit. There was no order as to costs and the interim application (W.M.P.No.45062 of 2025) was also dismissed.

¶1

W.P.No.40120 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

W.P.No.40120 of 2025 &

¶10

W.M.P.No.45062 of 2025

P. K. Ganesan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector District Collector Office State Bank Road, Gopalapuram Coimbatore 641 018.

¶15

The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation P-14,1109, Big Bazaar Street, near TK Market Town Hall, Coimbatore - 641 001.

¶16

Coimbatore District Town and Country Planning Office Ground Floor & First Floor Door No.50, FCI Road, Gandhimanagar Ganapathy, Coimbatore - 641 004.

¶17

Vivekanandan

¶18

Chitra

¶19

V. Priyadarshini

¶20

N. Akshaya

¶21

.. Respondents

¶22

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.40120 of 2025

¶25

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.07.2025 and direct the respondents 4 to 7 from making further construction and also direct the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the illegal constructions made by respondents 4 to 7 in S.No.7/1A of ward no. 88, Sundakamputhur Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesan

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath Government Advocate for Respondents 1 & 3

¶28

Mr.D.Ferdinand Standing Counsel for Respondent-2

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

Petitioner has filed this petition alleging illegal construction

¶32

being raised by respondents 4 to 7.

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.40120 of 2025

¶36

It is submitted that he has made a complaint to the

¶37

authority alleging that constructions are being raised by private respondents to develop a commercial building, whereas it is predominantly a residential area. It is submitted that though notice has been issued on 06.08.2025, till date, illegal construction has not been removed.

¶38

If petitioner has any grievance as far as his own land is concerned, he is at liberty to take appropriate action by filing a suit.

¶39

As far as allegation of inaction towards removal of alleged illegal construction is concerned, we find that the local body has already issued a notice and proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of inaction. Therefore, at this stage, it is not necessary for us to keep this petition pending. Keeping it open to the local authority to take their proceedings, drawn after notice to its logical conclusion, petition is dismissed.

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.40120 of 2025

¶43

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim

¶44

application is also dismissed.

¶45

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 03.11.2025