Dismissed¶44

N.Kumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35551/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment removal; Section 128 Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998; power to remove encroachment from public place; show cause notice returnable in seven days; no representation filed; Government poramboke land; road encroachment; Sri Rajakaliamman Temple; Ramanathapuram Municipality; District Collector and Tahsildar Ramanathapuram; writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ dismissed, no costs; connected MP closed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decision dated 11.12.2025; WP(MD)No.35551 of 2025; WMP(MD)No.28204 of 2025; G. Jayachandran J.; K.K. Ramakrishnan J.

What did the court decide?

The notice was issued after the authority was satisfied that the petitioner had encroached upon the public place, and seven days' time was granted for removing the structure. ¶37

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

¶1

WP(MD)No.35551 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.35551 of 2025 and WMP(MD)No.28204 of 2025

N.Kumar

... Petitioner

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram..

¶11

The Tahsildar,, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram..

¶12

The Commissioner,, Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram..

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating with the impugned order of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 3063/2025/F1 dated 29.11.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and consequently forbearing the respondents from taking any precipitative action, including demolition on the Sri Rajakaliamman Temple.

¶15

For Petitioners : Ms.R.Meenakshi For Respondent : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran for R1 and R2

¶16

Page No.1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)No.35551 of 2025

¶19

Additional Government Pleader Mr.K.Saravanan for R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

( Order of the Court was made by G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

¶22

The petitioner herein claiming that the structure, which is now sought to

¶23

be removed by the respondent Municipality, has been erected in the Government poramboke land encroaching upon the road is before this Court claiming that the temple was in existence even before his birth. He has put up a structure in the year 1991 at his expenses and maintaining it very responsibly and also obtained electricity service connection and paying tax to the Government for the property and therefore, without proper prior notice, notice issued under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Act, 1998 issued to be quashed.

¶24

Section 128 of the said Act reads as follows:

¶25

“128. Power to remove encroachment from public place.—

¶26

(1) The Commissioner may, (a) remove without any notice any movable temporary structure, enclosure, stall, booth, any article whatsoever hawked, exposed or displayed for sale or any other thing whatsoever by way of encroaching street or public place or the 1 [land belonging to or vested

¶27

Page No.2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

WP(MD)No.35551 of 2025

¶30

with the municipality] with the municipal limit ;

¶31

(b) remove any immovable structure whether permanent or of temporary nature encroaching the street or public place or the [land belonging to or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, after issuing a show cause notice for such removal, returnable within a period of seven days from the date of receipt thereof :

¶32

Provided that the Commissioner shall consider any represen-tation received within the time limit, before passing final orders.

¶33

(2) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space (not being private property) in any public street or any

¶34

[land belonging to or vested with the municipality] within the municipal limit, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees :

¶35

Provided that the Court may, for any adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.”

¶36

This notice issued after being satisfied that the petitioner has

¶37

encroached upon the public place. Seven days time was granted for removing the structure. If the petitioner has any reason to continue the possession, he

¶38

Page No.3 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

WP(MD)No.35551 of 2025

¶41

should have made representation to the authorities. From the affidavit, we find

¶42

that there is no such representation given by the petitioner and the seven days

¶43

has already lapsed.

¶44

In the said circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶45

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶46

(G.J, J.) (K.K.R.K, J.) 11.12.2025

¶47

¶48

¶49