Dismissed¶48

Dr.N.a.Priyadharshini v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Jan 2026WP/1634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed for maintainability: disputed question of fact over title cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction; petitioner directed to Civil Court. Keywords: writ petition vs suit; disputed facts; title dispute; quash impugned order; Assistant Engineer (WRO) order Lr. No Ko. 14/ 2025 / AE / Sathy dated 23.09.2025; no-construction direction; PWD Water Resources Organisation; Bhavanisagar Dam Division; Sathyamangalam Taluk; Erode District; Sellipalayam Village; SF.No.49/4A1; demolition of retaining wall; compensation claim; mental agony; liberty to approach Civil Court; no costs; Special Government Pleader; Madras High Court 2026; neutral citation 2026:MHC:445.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petitioner given liberty to approach the Civil Court. No costs. ¶48

Dr.N.a.Priyadharshini Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:MHC:445

¶2

WP No. 1634 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 28-01-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶9

WP No. 1634 of 2026

¶10

Dr.N.A.Priyadharshini

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

The District Collector

¶14

Erode District,

¶15

Collectorate,

¶16

Erode 638 011

¶17

The Revenue Divisional officer Gobichettipalayam 638 452

¶18

The Tahsildar

¶19

Sathyamangalam Taluk office,

¶20

Erode District

¶21

Sathyamangalam 638 402

¶22

The Engineer in Chief (WRO ) and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department

¶23

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

¶24

__________ Page1 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 1634 of 2026

¶27

The Chief Engineer, P.W.D., W.R.O., Pollachi Region,

¶28

Town Hall, Coimbatore 641 011

¶29

The Executive Engineer (WRD) Bhavanisagar Dam Division Bhavnisagar (PO) Sathyamangalam (TK) PIN 638 451

¶30

The Assistant divisional Engineer (WRO) Bhavanisagar Dam Division, Gobichettypalayam 638 452

¶31

The Assistant Engineer (WRO) Irrigation Section - Bhavanisagar Dam Division, Sathyamangalam 638 402

¶32

..Respondent(s)

¶33

Calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 8th respondent in Lr. No Ko. 14/ 2025 / AE / Sathy dated 23.09.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of her land situated in S.F. No 49/4A1, Sellipalayam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Eode District and further direct the respondents 7 and 8 to pay compensation as fixed by this Court to the petitioner for illegal demolition of the retaining wall in the subject matter land and for causing hardship and mental agony to the petitioner and her family members.

¶34

Page2 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 1634 of 2026

¶37

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Arun Kumar For Mr. K.R. Annamalai For Respondent(s): Mr.A. Selvendran, Special Government Pleader For R1 To 8.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(Order of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN J.)

¶40

The present writ petition has been filed instead of filing a suit.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that property in SF.No.49/4A1, Sellipalayam Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District is the absolute property of the petitioner, whereas the Government has issued the impugned order directing the petitioner not to put up any construction in the above area as the said SF.Number comes within the purview of Public Works Department, Water Resources Organisation.

¶42

Per contra, the main contention put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader is that since the property belongs to the petitioner, he is not entitled to maintain any writ petition. Even if the respondent interferes with the petitioner’s peaceful possession, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to get an appropriate remedy.

¶43

As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, now that the petitioner sets up title with him. But the Government seriously

¶44

Page3 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

WP No. 1634 of 2026

¶47

disputes the same and they claim right over the property. The above factual position clearly demonstrates the disputed facts between either parties. In such scenario, no writ can be maintained to resolve the disputed question of fact.

¶48

Accordingly, this Court finds that there are no merits in the present writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶49

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 28-01-2026

¶50

Index: Yes/No

¶51

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶52

¶53

¶54