Dismissed¶33

O.Indra v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Oct 2025WP(MD)/28969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suppression of facts; rank suppression; laches; dismissal of writ petition with costs; Section 6 order; Section 7 notice; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905; encroachment proceedings; joint patta; S.No 662/1 Kulathur Village Kulathur Taluk Pudukottai; Tahsildar; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; W.P.(MD)No.101 of 2025; prior challenge by petitioner's brother Arumugam; costs Rs.20,000 High Court Legal Services Committee; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth; C. Kumarappan.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to the Madurai Bench within one week; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶33

O.Indra Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Section 6 order dated 12.12.2024 should be entertained and the impugned order quashed, notwithstanding the petitioner's non-disclosure that the same order had already been challenged by her brother Arumugam in W.P.(MD)No.101 of 2025, and in view of laches.

¶32

Court's answer

There has been rank suppression of material fact by the petitioner: the identical Section 6 order (relating to S.No.662/1 and addressed to Arumugam, the petitioner's brother) had already been challenged in W.P.(MD)No.101 of 2025, and this was not disclosed in the present writ petition.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition must be dismissed on account of laches as well as suppression of facts.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of an order dated 12.12.2024 passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, and a direction to respondents 2-4 to issue joint patta in respect of S.No 662/1, Kulathur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District (extent about 48 sq.mts) by considering a representation dated 06.10.2025. DISMISSED: the Court found rank suppression of material fact - the identical Section 6 order, addressed to the petitioner's brother Arumugam, had already been challenged in W.P.(MD)No.101 of 2025, and the preceding Section 7 notice dated 21.11.2024 had likewise been challenged by him - and this was not disclosed in the present petition. Dismissal ordered on account of laches as well as suppression of facts, with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to the Madurai Bench within one week; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Order by Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.; bench also comprised Mr. Justice C. Kumarappan; dated 15.10.2025.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.28969 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.28969 of 2025 and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.22445, 22447 &22448 of 2025

¶9

O.Indra ... Petitioner

¶10

/Vs./

¶11

The District Collector, Collectorate, Pudukottai District.

¶12

The District Revenue Officer, Office of DRO, Pudukottai District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of RDO, Illuppur, Pudukottai District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.28969 of 2025

¶19

relating to the impugned notice dated 12.12.2024 issued by the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2 to 4 respondents to issue joint patta in respect of property in S.No 662/1, Kulathur Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District extent about 48 sq.mts by considering the representation dated 06.10.2025 within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner has challenged an order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, ('Act'), which is dated 12.12.2024.

¶24

There has been rank suppression of fact by the petitioner, insofar as that very order (relating to S.No.662/1 and addressed to Arumugam) has been the subject matter of challenge in WP(MD)No.101 of 2025. Arumugam is none other than the brother of Indra, the petitioner herein. That Section 6 order, which is dated 12.12.2024 was

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.28969 of 2025

¶28

preceded by a notice under Section 7 of the Act dated 21.11.2024.

¶29

From a reading of the affidavit filed in WP(MD)No.101 of

¶30

2025, which is part of the records produced by Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader before us, it appears that the notice was also subject to challenge by Arumugam. Thereafter, the same order as impugned before us was also challenged at the instance of Arumugam.

¶31

There is no disclosure of the aforesaid facts in the present

¶32

writ petition. The petitioner has merely challenged the same impugned order in the present writ petition, and we are categoric that the same must be dismissed on account of laches as well as suppression of facts.

¶33

This writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-

¶34

(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench within one week from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 15.10.2025

¶36

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sm

¶37

Note: Registry should intimate the Bench in Chambers in regard to the compliance of remittance of costs.

¶38

3/4

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.28969 of 2025