Dismissed¶29

Thaiyalnayagi v. Subramanian (Senior Citizen)

Madras HC6 Jan 2026WMP/242/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.M.P.No.242 of 2026 in W.P.No.14027 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 06.01.2026; impleadment application by nine persons rejected; Section 6, Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905; encroachment-removal proceedings; no lease, patta, document or licence of possession; liberty to seek patta after removal as encroachers; Chidambaram, Cuddalore District; Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava with Justice G.Arul Murugan.

What did the court decide?

Asked under what authority the applicants entered into possession of the land, they gave no satisfactory reply, and no lease, patta, document or licence was placed on record. ¶25

Thaiyalnayagi Vs Subramanian (Senior Citizen) — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WMP No.242 of 2026 in WP No.14027 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶8

W.M.P.No.242 of 2026 in W.P.No.14027 of 2024

¶9

Thaiyalnayagi W/o.Manogaran No.2,Nehru Nagar S.P.Koil Street Chidambaram Cuddalore District - 608001 and 8 others

¶10

Petitioners

¶11

¶12

Subramanian (Senior Citizen) S/o.Kuttiyandi, No.505, Poodakeni Main Road, Pallipadai, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District and 6 others

¶13

Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

¶15

____________ Page 1 of 3_

¶16

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

¶17

WMP No.242 of 2026 in WP No.14027 of 2024

¶18

For Respondents: Mr.B.Jagannath for respondent No.1

¶19

Mr.M.Suresh Kumar Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan Addl. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 6

¶20

Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel for respondent No.7

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

Application seeking impleadment is filed by nine persons against whom order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has been passed.

¶24

Challenge to the ongoing proceedings for removal of encroachment is mainly on the ground that there is no regularity of the proceedings and representations have not been considered.

¶25

On being asked as to under what authority the applicants/persons have entered into possession of the land, there is no satisfactory reply, much less any lease, patta, document, license ____________ Page 2 of 3_

¶26

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

¶27

WMP No.242 of 2026 in WP No.14027 of 2024

¶28

placed on record.

¶29

The application is, therefore, rejected. However, it will be open for the applicants to seek grant of patta, if so advised, once they are removed as encroachers.

¶30

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 06.01.2026

¶31

sasi

¶32

____________ Page 3 of 3_

¶33

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

Thaiyalnayagi v. Subramanian (Senior Citizen)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thaiyalnayagi v. Subramanian (Senior Citizen)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sathish Srinivas Vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Wire and Wire Products Vs The Tamil Nadu Small Industries

K.Jainul Abdeen Vs the District Collector

J.Sathyabama Vs the Member Secretary

Traffic Ramaswamy Foundation Vs the Principal Secretary, Fiannce Department

Mahoobbasha Vs The Chairman