Dismissed¶31

Alagumalai v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Dec 2025WP(MD)/36329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alagumani vs The District Collector Madurai and others; W.P.(MD)No.36329 of 2025; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; decision 18.12.2025; Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905; Sections 6, 7 and 10; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; Tahsildar Peraiyur encroachment notice Na.Ka.No.0866/2025/C2 and Memo Na.Ka.No.0726/2025/C2; Panchayat road encroachment 50 sq.meters; alternative statutory remedy doctrine; writ dismissed without going into merits; liberty to appeal to District Collector under Section 10.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority/District Collector under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act and prefer an appeal, if so advised; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs. ¶31

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner had encroached upon the Panchayat road and whether the notices/Memo issued by the Tahsildar under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were sustainable (expressly left undecided by the Court). +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The Court recorded the Tahsildar's report indicating encroachment of around 50 sq.meters of the Panchayat road, but expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the impugned order, leaving the merits to the appellate authority.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner, aggrieved by the Section 7 notice, had a statutory appeal remedy under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act available and instead approached this Court, the writ petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion about the impugned order.

¶31

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority/District Collector under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act and prefer an appeal, if so advised; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed and no order as to costs is made.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.36329 of 2025, connected W.M.P.(MD)No.28907 of 2025), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 18.12.2025 by Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran sitting with Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 to quash notices in Na.Ka.No.0866/2025/C2 dated 20.05.2025 and 16.06.2025 and a Memo in Na.Ka.No.0726/2025/C2 dated 25.10.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Peraiyur under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, contending he had not encroached upon the Panchayat road. The Court noted the Tahsildar's report of encroachment of around 50 sq.meters, held that the petitioner's grievance against the Section 7 notice fell to be pursued by way of the statutory appeal under Section 10 before the appellate authority/District Collector rather than by writ, and dismissed the petition without expressing any opinion on the impugned order, granting liberty to prefer such an appeal. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs. No precedent was cited or discussed.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 18.12.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.36329 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.28907 of 2025

Alagumani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, At Madurai, Madurai District.

¶13

2.The Tahsildar of Peraiyur, At Peraiyur, Madurai District.

¶14

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Jambalapuram, Sedapatti Post, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶15

4.The Block Development Officer, Sedapatti, Peraiyur Taluk,

¶16

5.The Head Surveyor, At Peraiyur, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶17

6.Block Surveyor, At Sedapatti, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶22

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent notices in Na.Ka.No.0866/2025/C2, dated 20.05.2025, its subsequent notice in Na. Ka. No. 0866/2025/C2, dated 16.06.2025, issued by the Thasildhar, Peraiyur, under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and subsequent Memo in Na. Ka. No.0726/2025/C2, dated 25.10.2025, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property without conducting a proper survey and enquiry in accordance with law.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajalingam For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan (R1 to R3, R5 & R6) Special Government Pleader Mr.D.Sasi Kumar (R4) Additional Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner, herein being aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act for removing encroachment after filing due process of law, is before this Court stating that he has not encroached upon the Panchayat road.

¶27

2.However, the report of the Tahsildar clearly indicates that the petitioner has encroached around 50 sq.meters of the Panchayat road. If

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, he has to explore his remedy by way of a statutory appeal available under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment, instead he has approached this Court.

¶31

3.We therefore dismiss this writ petition without expressing any opinion about the impugned order with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority/District Collector under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act and prefer an appeal, if so advised. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 18.12.2025

¶33

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta To

¶34