Disposed

Sabaratinam v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WP(MD)/15351/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought removal of a park established by Trichy Corporation on land classified as road. The court found disputed facts regarding the petitioner's access and declined to decide them in writ jurisdiction, granting liberty to approach the civil court for easementary relief.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief including easementary relief; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Sabaratinam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.15351 OF 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.15351 of 2020

¶9

Sabaratinam ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Ezhelagam, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

The Commissioner, Trichy Corporation, Trichy.

¶15

The Executive Engineer(Planning), Tiruchirapalli Corporation, Trichy. ... Respondents

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

2 W.P.(MD)NO.15351 OF 2020

¶19

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate an appropriate action to remove the encroachment by way of establishing the garden by the third respondent bearing old survey No.131 and new T.S.No.1 situated at Royal Road, Cantonment, Trichy District bounded by North by: Lawson's Road, Alexandria Road in Ward AB Block 4, West by : Ward AB, Block 16 and Ward AB, Block 25, East by : T.S.Nos.3, 2, 18/1, 19, 20/2, 21/2, 21/3B, 21/5A, 21/5B, 18/3, 23, 25 & 26 all in Ward AB Block 17 and South by : Ward G, Block 23 within the time stipulated by this Court and further ensure that there shall not be any encroachment on the subject matter of the Royal Road by anybody except for development of the road as stipulated by the Act.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondents : Mr.S.Saji Bino, Special Government Pleader for R-1 & R-2.

¶21

Mr.R.Baskaran, Senior counsel, for M/s.R.B.Associates for R-3 & R-4.

J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

2/5

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

¶27

3 W.P.(MD)NO.15351 OF 2020

¶28

The prayer in the writ petition is that the respondents 1 and

¶29

2 must take action for removing the park put up by the third respondent / local body.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is right in his contention that as per the revenue record, the western boundary has been classified only as road. But then, it appears that it was full of encroachment. After the encroachments were cleared in 1990s, a park was put up. The park was handed over to a hospital for maintenance. Subsequently, the local body itself took over the same and it has been beautified.

¶31

This writ petition was filed only in October 2020. The park was established in 1994. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner who is a senior citizen does not have any right of access to his house that is located on the eastern side of the park. The stand of the respondents is that the writ petitioner is very much having the right to access on the southern side. Several disputed facts have arisen for consideration. They cannot be decided 3/5

¶32

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

¶33

4 W.P.(MD)NO.15351 OF 2020

¶34

in the writ proceedings. We therefore grant liberty to the writ

¶35

petitioner to move the jurisdictinal civil Court for appropriate relief including the easementary relief. This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶36

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (R.KALAIMATHI, J.) 16^th December 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

PMU

¶38

To:

¶39

The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶40

The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Ezhelagam, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,

¶41

Chennai – 600 005.

¶42

4/5

¶43

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

¶44

5 W.P.(MD)NO.15351 OF 2020

¶45

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

R.KALAIMATHI, J.

PMU

W.P.(MD)No.15351 Of 2020

¶50

16.12.2025

¶51

5/5

¶52

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

Sabaratinam v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabaratinam v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Vedanta Limited Vs Union of India

R.Ayyapillai Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

G.Gururajan Vs The Commissioner

M.Mathuresan Vs the Commissioner

G.Mythili Vs The Commissioner