The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a final notice for removal of encroachment on highway land, holding that the petition was filed to prolong eviction proceedings. The Court directed immediate eviction of the petitioner and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.48167 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.48167 of 202 5 and
W.M.P.No.53824 of 202 5
T.Maheshraj, S/o Late K.V.Thirumal
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the memorandum No.512/2024/A1 dated 28.11.2025 and to quash the same.
Page 1 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel for Mr.Lakshmi Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
The final notice dated 28.11.2025 issued under Section 28(2) of
the Highways Act, 2001 is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings.
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 on 31.01.2024 treating the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 as a show
cause notice. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file his reply within a period of ten days and thereafter, the authorities shall consider the reply and take a decision on its own merits. The petitioner submitted his reply on 07.02.2024 mainly stating that he is the owner of the property situated at S.No.307/5A at Thiruthani Village an extent of 25 cents. The property was purchased by his grandfather in the year 1947 and the family of the petitioner continue to be in possession of the subject property. The petitioner contended that the initiation of eviction proceedings per se is erroneous, since it is a private property and the lands in S.No.307/5A belongs to the family of the petitioner.
Page 3 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 Assistant Divisional Engineer would show that the encroachments
identified in S.No.306 belongs to Highways Department. The Assistant Divisional Engineer considered the survey report of the revenue authorities and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon the Highways property. Therefore, it is made clear that the final order has been passed as early as on 29.04.2025 by the Assistant Divisional Engineer. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.17475/2025. The Division Bench disposed of the said writ petition on 06.06.2025, elaborately recording the earlier order passed by the Division Bench in two writ petitions and issued the following directions.
i. The impugned order bearing reference
Memorandum No.512/2024/A1 dated 29.04/2025 made by R2 is set aside on the short point that it is contrary to the 31.01.2024 judicial order and
Section 28 of the TN Highways Act as it has not considered the writ petitioner’s response dated 07.02.2024;
ii. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter qua encroachment, all questions are left open and it is for the authorities concerned to make an order
after considering the writ petitioner’s response
Page 4 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 dated 07.02.2024 vide proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of the TN Highways Act;
iii. The order made in the aforesaid manner by R2 shall be served on the writ petitioner within a period of seven working days from the date of the order under due acknowledgment;
iv. Coercive action, in any manner, if any and if that be so can only be subject to and depending on the order to be made by R2 in the aforesaid
manner; and
v. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of writ petitioner shall stand preserved for assailing
such an order, if it is adverse to the writ petitioner.
Page 5 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 No.306. After conduct of joint survey and based on the report of the
surveyor as affirmed by the revenue authorities, final notice has been issued in proceedings dated 28.11.2025, which is impugned in the present writ proceedings.
Page 6 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 therefore, eviction proceedings are accelerated and on account of
continuous ligitations launched at the instance of the petitioner, the public project is unable to be implemented.
Page 7 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 detailed explanation on 07.02.2024. The second notice dated 12.08.2024
was challenged in W.P.No.24367/2024. Thereafter, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, pursuant to the direction conducted a detailed enquiry by affording an opportunity to the petitioner and passed final order in proceedings dated 29.04.2025, which is a speaking order. The said order came to be challenged in W.P.No.17475/2025 and in the said writ petition, the Division Bench issued certain directions. Even thereafter, a joint survey was conducted by the Highways Department through Revenue Officers and in the presence of the petitioner. Even during the said joint survey the authorities identified the encroachments in S.No.306, which belongs to Highways Department. Therefore, the final notice came to be issued in proceedings dated 28.11.2025, which is under challenge the present writ petition. The said notice cannot be construed as a first show cause notice. The writ petitioner has earlier filed three writ petitions and in all the three writ petitions, this Court considered the issues and provided opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanations and directed the authorities to decide the issue. The authorities also conducted more than one survey and identified the encroachments and final order also had been passed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer and when the final notice had been issued, the said notice has been challenged once again. The repeated filing of the writ petitions by the petitioner would show that he is trying to prolong the eviction proceedings one way or other which cannot be encouraged by
Page 8 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025 this Court. The Highways encroachments would cause greater
inconvenience and would pose threat to the road users. That is the reason why Highways Act contemplates simplified procedures for the purpose of eviction of encroachers from the Highways. Any obstructions in Highways may result in accidents and the consequences are also disastrous. Under these circumstances, Highway projects need not be stalled by entertaining repeated writ petitions by the encroachers as done in the present case.
12. C onsidering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is able to arrive at a n irresistible conclusion that the present writ petition is one that filed with a view to prolong the eviction proceedings and that being so, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The respondents are directed to evict the petitioner forthwith without any delay. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 08.12.2025
vsi Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes
Page 9 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025
To
Page 10 of 11
W.P.No.48167 of 2025
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsi
W.P.No.48167 of 202 5
08.12.2025
Page 11 of 11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's repeated litigation constitutes an abuse of process to prolong highway encroachment eviction proceedings.
Whether the final notice issued by the Highways Department complied with procedural requirements under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Maheshraj
The District Collector, Tiruvallur
The Assistant Divisional Engineer(H), Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer(H), Thiruttani Sub-Division, Thiruttani
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division Office, Thiruttani
The Tahsildar, Thiruttani
The Assistant Engineer (H), C & M, Thiruttani Division
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
C. KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
