Disposed¶37

Muniyandi v. The Diistrict Collector

Madras HC3 Jun 2026WP/19167/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Muniyandi v. District Collector, Kancheepuram & others; WP No. 19167 of 2026, Madras High Court, decided 03-06-2026. Keywords: patta; encroachment; expansion of public road; certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Kancheepuram Municipality; Kanchipuram Corporation; Na.Ka.No.11293/2020/F1 dated 28.01.2026; representation dated 26.02.2026; enquiry notice 13.08.2025; W.P.No.27259 of 2021 dated 25.06.2025; due process before eviction; No.6 Gokulam Street, Chinna Kancheepuram; writ petition disposed of, no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition seeking patta for the portion of the land encroached by the petitioner, which is required for the State for expansion of the road. ¶36

Muniyandi Vs The Diistrict Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 19167 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶7

Writ Petition No. 19167 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos. 20440 & 20450 of 2026

Muniyandi

..Petitioner

The Diistrict Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 631502.

¶12

The Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality, Annai India Gandhi Salai, Kancheepuram 631502.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 631502.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.11293/2020/F1 dated 28/01/2026, 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

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 19167 of 2026

¶19

favour in respect of the property situate at No.6, Gokulam Street, Chinna Kancheepuram.

¶20

For Petitioner:	Mr.K.M.Balaji
For Respondents:	Mr.V.Balakrishnan,
	Government Advocate For R1 And R3
	Mr. RA.Gopinath, Standing Counsel For R2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

Mr.V.Balakrishnan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on

¶24

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

¶26

is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶27

3. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.27259 of 2021, dated 25.06.2025, the Commissioner of Kancheepuram Corporation, 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 by her. The same was rejected by the Commissioner, Kanchipuram Corporation, vide notice dated 28.01.2026. 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

¶28

Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 19167 of 2026

¶31

land. The present writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to consider his representation dated 26.02.2026, for grant of patta.

¶32

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1

¶33

and 3 submits that the land in occupation of the writ petitioner, encroached by

¶34

her, is identified for the expansion of the public road and being an encroachment on the public road, patta cannot be granted.

¶35

5. Considering the sequence of fact, we are not inclined to entertain

¶36

the writ petition seeking patta for the portion of the land encroached by the petitioner herein, which is required for 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.

¶37

6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶38

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

¶39

(Dr.G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 03-06-2026

¶40

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

¶41

rpl

¶42

__________ Page3 of 4