Disposed¶33

M.R.Vadivelu v. The District collector

Madras HC1 Jun 2026WP/18187/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta; encroachment; encroacher; public road expansion; Kancheepuram District Collector; Kancheepuram Municipality/Corporation Commissioner; Tahsildar Kancheepuram Taluk; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; representation dated 26.02.2026; rejection notice dated 09.02.2026; Enquiry Notice dated 13.08.2025 pursuant to WP.No.27259/2021 dated 25.06.2025; due process before eviction; writ disposed of; no costs; WMP No. 19542 of 2026 closed; taken up for final disposal at admission stage by consent.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition disposed of with observations, no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No. 19542 of 2026) closed. ¶33

M.R.Vadivelu Vs The District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 18187 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶8

WP No. 18187 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 19542 OF 2026

¶9

M.R.Vadivelu S/o.Rathinam, residing at No.6D, Gokulam Street, Chinna Kancheepuram-631 501

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The District collector Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram-631 502

¶13

The Commissioner Kancheepuram Municipality, Anna Indira Gandhi Salai, Kancheepuram-631 502

¶14

The Tahsildar Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram district, Kancheepuram-631 502

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.11293/ 220/F1 dated 28.10.2026 quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent and 3rd respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 26.02.2026 for grant of patta in petitioners favour in respect of the property situate at No.6D, Gokulam Street, Chinna Kancheepuram.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 18187 of 2026

¶20

WP No. 18187 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner(s):	M/s.S.Ganesh K.M.Balaji M.karthiga Deepika Murali
For Respondent(s):	Mr.V.Balakrishnan, GA for RR1,3 Mr.Ra.Gopinath, Standing counsel for R2

¶22

Order

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶24

(1)Mr.V.Balakrishnan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.Ra.Gopinath, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶25

(2)By consent of the learned counsels on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶26

(3)Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.27259/2021, dated 25.06.2025, the Corporation of Kancheepuram, has issued Enquiry Notice to the writ petitioner herein on 13.08.2025, for which the writ petitioner has given a representation and sought for issuance of patta in respect of the land encroached

¶27

by him. The same was rejected by the Commissioner, Kanchipuram Corporation, vide notice dated 09.02.2026. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a further representation for issuance of patta citing his long occupation of the land. The present writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to consider his representation dated 26.02.2026, for grant of patta.

¶28

Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 18187 of 2026

¶31

(4)The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submits that the land in occupation of the writ petitioner, encroached by him, is identified for the expansion of the public road and being encroached on the public road, patta cannot be granted.

¶32

(5)Considering the sequence of fact, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition seeking patta for the portion of the land encroached by the petitioner herein, which is required by the State for expansion of the road. However, before evicting the petitioner, we have no doubt that the respondents will follow due process of law and take possession.

¶33