Dismissed¶42

Baskaran v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WP(MD)/35999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL maintainability apprehension of future encroachment; writ of mandamus demolition unauthorised construction; Article 226; Madurai Bench; Town Survey No.7 Old Survey No.177/13 Block No.9 Pandamangalam K.Abishekapuram Zone Tiruchirappalli; R.Dayanidhi Memorial Vidyasala Matriculation School gate arch without permission; representation dated 07.10.2025 not acted upon; premature writ petition; vigilance direction to Commissioner Tiruchirappalli Corporation; dismissed, no costs; W.P.(MD)No.35999 of 2025; 16.12.2025; G. Jayachandran J.; K.K. Ramakrishnan J.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; mandamus refused and writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs, subject to an observation that the fifth respondent remain vigilant against encroachment of public land. ¶42

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; mandamus refused and writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs, subject to an observation that the fifth respondent remain vigilant against encroachment of public land.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 5 to demolish the construction put up by the sixth respondent in Town S.No.7 (Old S.No.177/13), Block No.9, Pandamangalam, K.Abishekapuram Zone, Tiruchirappalli City, and remove the alleged encroachment pursuant to the petitioners' representation dated 07.10.2025. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

On reading the affidavit (particularly paragraph 3) and the photographs annexed, the Court found the gate and arch are well within the property of the sixth respondent and cause no hindrance to the public road running alongside the school building; the alleged arch is nothing but a board of the school.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was filed in anticipation of a possible encroachment upon Survey No.7 by the sixth respondent, and that apprehension of future encroachment is premature.

¶41

Key takeaways

A public interest litigation cannot be entertained on the basis of an apprehension of encroachment in the future; accordingly the writ petition fails.ratio¶42
Observation accompanying dismissal: the fifth respondent (Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation) shall remain vigilant and take appropriate action in accordance with law in case of any damage or encroachment of public land.obiter¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), by order of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, dismissed a public interest writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to respondents 1 to 5 to demolish a gate and arch erected by R.Dayanidhi Memorial Vidyasala Matriculation School near Town Survey No.7, Pandamangalam, Tiruchirappalli. Held: the photographs showed the gate and arch to be well within the school's own property, causing no hindrance to the adjoining public road; the petitioners' apprehension of future encroachment on Survey No.7 was premature, and a PIL cannot be entertained on mere apprehension of future encroachment. The Court observed that the fifth respondent (Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation) shall remain vigilant and act in accordance with law against any encroachment of public land. No costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.35999 of 2025

¶6

1.Baskaran

¶7

2.A.V.Vijayakumar

¶8

3.Yohanand

¶9

4.R.Nachimuthu

¶10

5.Muhunthan

¶11

6.J.Vasantha

¶12

7.J.J.Baskar

¶13

8.P.Mathivanan

¶14

9.P.Sumathi

¶15

10.Prabhakaran Nagarajan ... Petitioners

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶18

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶19

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶20

4.The Thasildar (West), No.2, Bharathidasan Salai, Contonment, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

5.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation, 58, Bharathisan Salai, Opp.To Campion School, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli.

¶24

6.The Correspondent, R.Dayanidhi Memorial Vidyasala Matriculation School, Bama Colony, Kulumani Main Road, Sri Akilendeswari Nagar, Melapandamangalam, Tiruchirappalli-620 003. ... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to demolish the unauthorized construction constructed by the sixth respondent in Town S.No.7, Old S.No.177/13, Block No.9, Pandamangalam, K.Abishekapuram Zone, Tiruchirappalli City based on the petitioner's representation dated 07.10.2025 and remove the encroachment within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan (R1 to R4) Special Government Pleader Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram (R5) for M/s.RB Law Associates

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to demolish the unauthorised construction constructed

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

by the sixth respondent in Town Survey No.7, Old Survey No.177/13, Block No.9, Pandamangalam, K.Abishekapuram Zone, Tiruchirappalli City.

¶33

2.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶34

the representation dated 07.10.2025 was sent to the authorities seeking to remove the encroachment. The said representation was not acted upon. Hence, he seeks a mandamus.

¶35

3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the gate

¶36

with an arch of the School was constructed without obtaining prior permission from the fifth respondent. It is constructed in a sensitive zone. Subsequently, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the sixth respondent is attempting to extend their access into Survey No.7 with a motive to use the adjoining public road.

¶37

4.This Court on reading of the affidavit filed in support of this

¶38

writ petition, particularly, paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, finds that the writ petition is filed in anticipation that the sixth respondent will encroach upon Survey No.7 and likely to cause inconvenience to the

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

public by converting the public land for private use. The photographs annexed to the writ petition indicate that the gate and arch is well within the property of the sixth respondent. The apprehension of the petitioner about the likelihood of the encroachment into Survey No.7 is prematured. The alleged arch is nothing but a board of the said School and the gate or arch no way cause any hindrance to the public road running alongside the School building as seen from the photographs.

¶42

5.Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained on the basis of the apprehension of encroachment in future. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. It is needless to mention here that the fifth respondent shall always be vigil and in case of any damage or encroachment in the public land, appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 16.12.2025

¶44

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

¶48