Dismissed¶40

Rajendran v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Aug 2025WP(MD)/22780/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment removal from Government poramboke land; final notice Na.Ka.No.286/2018/A1 dated 11.08.2025; free house site patta not claimable as a matter of right; eligibility under Government Welfare Schemes; violation of voluntary undertaking to vacate within 30 days; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; Kanyakumari District; Tahsildar Kalkulam Taluk; Executive Officer Villukuri Town Panchayat; earlier directions in W.P.(MD)No.22640 of 2018 (27.11.2023) and W.P.(MD)No.4562 of 2025 (19.02.2025); dismissal with direction to conclude enforcement action; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; authorities competent directed to conclude the enforcement action by vacating the encroachers from the Government land; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶40

Rajendran Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; authorities competent directed to conclude the enforcement action by vacating the encroachers from the Government land; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the final notice dated 11.08.2025 in Na.Ka.No.286/2018/A1 issued by the 3rd respondent (Executive Officer, Villukuri Town Panchayat), concluding the enforcement action against the petitioners' encroachment, is liable to be quashed as illegal. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioners, having themselves given an undertaking to vacate the encroached Government land and having not complied with it, are not entitled to any relief from the hands of this Court.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Free house site patta cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it is to be granted only if the petitioners are eligible and such a Government Welfare Scheme is in force, with eligibility verified under the schemes.

¶33

Key takeaways

The authorities competent are directed to conclude the enforcement action by vacating the encroachers from the Government land.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash a final notice dated 11.08.2025 in Na.Ka.No.286/2018/A1 issued by the Executive Officer, Villukuri Town Panchayat, concluding enforcement action against encroachments on Government poramboke land in Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, and seeking a direction to provide alternative land. The enforcement followed directions issued by the Court in W.P.(MD)No.22640 of 2018 (order dated 27.11.2023) and W.P.(MD)No.4562 of 2025 (order dated 19.02.2025); opportunities were afforded but the petitioners produced no documents of right, and they violated their voluntary undertaking to vacate within 30 days. Held: free house site patta cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is grantable only on eligibility under a welfare scheme in force; the petitioners are not entitled to any relief; the authorities competent are directed to conclude the enforcement action by vacating the encroachers. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22780 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.22780 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17854 of 2025

¶9

1.Rajendran 2.Ramasamy

3.Annakili

4.Pathrakali

... Petitioners

-Vs-

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

2.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶16

3.The Executive Officer, Villukuri Town Panchayat, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.22780 of 2025

¶21

impugned order in Na.Ka.No.286/2018/A1, dated 11.08.2025 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to provide alternative land to the petitioners by the way of considering their representation dated 11.08.2025 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesan For R1 & R2 : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.OM.Prakash, Government Advocate

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶25

The final notice to conclude the enforcement action issued in

¶26

proceedings dated 11.08.2025 is sought to be assailed in the present Writ proceedings.

¶27

2.The authorities competent during survey identified the encroachments in Government poramboke land. Enforcement actions are initiated pursuant to the directions twice issued by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2023 in

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.22780 of 2025

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.22640 of 2018 and vide order dated 19.02.2025 in W.P.(MD)No.4562 of 2025. Opportunities were afforded to the petitioners to establish their defence. Since the petitioners have not produced any documents to establish their right, final notice was issued for removal of the encroachment. When the authorities competent have taken steps to remove the encroachment, the petitioners have made a promise voluntarily that they will vacate the premises within a period of 30 days by identifying the alternative place. However, they have violated their own undertaking and thus, final notice was issued.

¶32

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that alternative land is to be provided to the petitioners.

¶33

4.Alternative land is to be provided by verifying eligibility of the petitioners under the Government Welfare Schemes. Free house site patta cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is to be granted, only if the petitioners are eligible and any such scheme is in force, but not otherwise. In the present case, the petitioners themselves have given an undertaking to vacate the encroached Government land, however, they have not complied with the same.

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.22780 of 2025

¶37