Dismissed

Devi M v. The Divisional Engineer

Madras HC25 Sept 2025WP(MD)/26939/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice under Section 24(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 for encroachment on National Highway land. The court adopted its order in an identical earlier matter, found the survey properly conducted with the petitioner present, and dismissed the petition, permitting lawful removal of encroachments.

What the court decided

AI extract

Devi M Vs The Divisional Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 25.09.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.26939 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)No.20916 of 2025

M.Devi

...Petitioner

/Vs./

The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, 50, Sundarraj Nagar, Highways Colony, Pudukkottai Road, Trichy-20.

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to respondent proceedings made in K.No.12/Encroachment/N.H. 336/A2/2025 dated 12.09.2025 quash the same and further direct the respondent to conduct the survey after fixing the exact boundary stone to National Highways.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Zahir Hussain for Mr.R.Sundar For Respondent : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶17

Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶18

accepts notice for the sole respondent.

¶19

2.An identical matter was considered on 23.09.2025 in

¶20

W.P(MD)No.26315 and 20573 of 2025 and we have dismissed the same by way of the following order:

¶21

“Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government

¶22

Pleader accepts notice for the sole respondent.

¶23

2. Upon hearing the rival contentions, the following facts emerge. Notice was first issued under Section 24(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, on 21.05.2025, followed by a second notice on 12.09.2025.

¶24

3.The petitioner in WP(MD)No.26315 of 2025 filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.6096 of 2025 challenging the notice dated 21.05.2025 and by an order dated 21.03.2025, the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Tiruchirappalli District was directed to survey the land at S.No.119/3B, Gundur Village, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District (land in question) in the presence of

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

the petitioner on 24.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m.

¶28

4. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners, in occupation of the property in question, have encroached upon the National Highway, which is at S.No. 120/1, Gundur Village, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Pudukottai - Tiruchirappalli Road, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶29

5.A survey was conducted as directed by the Court in the presence of the petitioners and subsequent notice issued on 15.05.2025 reiterating the removal of encroachment. The petitioners have not challenged that notice.

¶30

6.In the interim, a batch of writ petitions came to be filed by other encroachers questioning the authority of the Divisional Engineer to issue notice under Section 24(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and by order dated 07.08.2025, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, is the competent authority.

¶31

7.While so, the impugned notice has come to be issued on 12.09.2025 reiterating removal of encroachment, which has been challenged in the present writ petitions. The respondents were asked to produce the records including specifically the survey report, as the main grievance of the petitioners before us was that the survey had not been conducted in a proper manner.

¶32

8.The survey report reads as follows:-

¶33

“ nkw;go fpuhkk; g[y vz; : - 119/3B MdJ UDR ' m ' gjpntl;od; gona 119/3B1 Kjy; 3B56 tiu cl;gphpt[fshf gphpf;fg;gl;L fpuhk fzf;fpy; gjpthfpa[s;sJ nkYk; 119/3B1 ia-jtpu 119/3B2 Kjy; 3B56 tiu cs;s cl;gphpt[fs; aht[k; tPl;Lkidfs; gphpf;fg;gl;l gFjpahFk; gpd;g[ 119/3B1 Kjy; 3B56 tiu ej;jk; epythpj;jpl;lj;jpy; vLj;J bfhs;sg;gl;L jw;nghJ ej;jk; kid gFjpfshf guhkhpg;gpy; cs;sJ g[y vz; 120 MdJ 120/1g[Jf;nfhl;il rhiyahft[k;> 120/2- tha;f;fhy; vd;Wk; gjpthfpa[s;sJ nkw;go g[y vz;zpy;

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

kDjhuhpd; ,lj;ij kDjhuh; mst[fs; go mstp gzp bra;ag;gl;lJ. mjpy; kDjhuh; jpUkjp g[;gh f/bg.njtuh$; mthpd; tPL cs;s gFjp g[y vz; :- 120/1 -y; cs;s g[Jf;nfhl;il rhiy vDk; gjpthfpa[s;s gFjpapy; mike;Js;sij mst[ gzp K:yk; fhz;gpf;fg;gl;lJ ,e;neh;tpy;> fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh;> cjtp bghwpahsh;> beLQ;rhiyj;Jiw kw;Wk; kDjhuhpd; tHf;fwpQh;fSk; cldpUe;J bjhpe;J bfhz;ldh;.

¶37

vd;nt kDjhuhpd; ,lk; Fz;Lh; fpuhkk; g[y vz; 120/1 -y; fl;LgLfpwJ. mjid g[yg;glj;jpy; tz;zkpl;L milahdkplg;gLk;> g[y vz;. 119/3B -y; kDjhuhpd; ,lk; fl;Lgltpy;iy vd;ija[k; ,jd; K:yk; bjhptpj;Jk;> g[yg;gl efhpy; kDjhuhpd; tPL gFjpia milahskplg;gl;L ,j;Jld; ,izj;J chpa nky;eltof;if;F gzpt[ld; rkh;gpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;. ”

¶38

9.The report, also accompanied by a map, which reveals that petitioners have encroached upon Survey No. 120/1, which is the National Highway.

¶39

10.The survey report clearly mentions that not only the authorised person, but the family members as well as the advocate of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26315 of 2025 were present at the time of the survey. Hence, the contention that the survey has not been conducted properly or in her absence, is belied by the contents of the survey report and is hence rejected.

¶40

11.As far as W.P.(MD)No.26561 of 2025 is concerned, the impugned order makes it clear that the survey process was undertaken prior to demarcation of the boundaries of the National Highways in Survey No.120/1 and the petitioner and other residents in that area and their authorised representatives/Advocates were also present on that occasion.

¶41

12.In light of the categoric findings in the report to the effect that the petitioners have encroached upon the National Highways, there is no merit whatsoever in the

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

challenge to the impugned notice. It is seen from narration in the paragraphs supra that the respondents have been making repeated attempts by issuance of notices and there have been no credible objections put forth by the petitioners.

¶45

13.These writ petitions are dismissed and respondents are directed to take all measures necessary, in accordance with law to remove the encroachments particularly seeing as survey No.121 is National highway, and bearing in mind public interest. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶46

In light of identity in facts and circumstances, the aforesaid

¶47

order is taken to be passed in the present matter as well.

¶48

This writ petition is dismissed and respondent is directed to

¶49

take all measures necessary, in accordance with law to remove the encroachments particularly seeing as the petition mentioned property is a National highway, and bearing in mind public interest. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

[A.S.M.J.,] [C.K.J.,] 25.09.2025

¶51

Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No sm

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶55

¶56

¶57

The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, 50, Sundarraj Nagar, Highways Colony, Pudukkottai Road, Trichy-20.

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.26939 of 2025

¶59

25.09.2025

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Devi M v. The Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Devi M v. The Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Mani Vs The District Collector

Pakkar Vs Ulpath Nisha

Raja.M Vs the Secretary

Jesu Vs The District Collector

S.Yamini Vs The Chairman

M.Boominathan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu