Disposed¶33

Vijayachandar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC15 Jun 2026WP/22284/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court disposes of writ petition by encroacher challenging Greater Chennai Corporation eviction/removal notice dated 23.05.2026; prior notice under Section 128, Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998 issued 19.12.2025; opportunity held to have been afforded; plea of discrimination/victimisation by ward councillor rejected as no ground to protect illegal encroachment; Corporation directed to remove encroachment without discrimination; certiorarified mandamus refused; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Writ Petition was disposed of with the above observations, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No. 24172 of 2026) was closed, and no costs were awarded. ¶33

Vijayachandar Vs the State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the Writ Petition was disposed of with the above observations, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No. 24172 of 2026) was closed, and no costs were awarded.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice for removal dated 23.05.2026 is liable to be quashed on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given and the petitioner's explanations dated 27.05.2026 and 05.06.2026 remain undisposed. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Action was initiated by notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998 as early as 19.12.2025, and the impugned notice for removal dated 23.05.2026 was issued only after identifying the encroached portion and affording opportunity to the petitioner; hence the petitioner's submissions lack merit.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner cannot be a valid ground to protect an illegal encroachment from eviction.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Corporation authorities are directed to remove the illegal encroachment without any discrimination.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Dr. G. Jayachandran J., author; N. Mala J.) disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Vijayachandar, an encroacher, challenging the notice for removal dated 23.05.2026 (Ma.A.4.Na.Ka.En/Sirappu/2026) issued by the 2nd respondent of the Greater Chennai Corporation, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus on the grounds that no opportunity of being heard was given and that he was victimised at the instance of the Local Ward Councillor. The Court held that the Corporation had initiated action as early as 19.12.2025 by issuing notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998, and that the impugned notice was issued only after identifying the encroached portion and affording opportunity to the petitioner. The Court further held that the plea of discrimination cannot be a valid ground to protect an illegal encroachment from eviction, and directed the Corporation authorities to remove the illegal encroachment without any discrimination. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 22284 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶6

Writ Petition No. 22284 of 2026

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No. 24172 of 2026

Vijayachandar

..Petitioner

The State Rep by The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

¶13

The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit 10, Division 4, Greater Chennai Corporation, Regional Office- North, Washermenpet, Chennai.

¶14

The Assistant Engineer Greater chennai Corporation, Washermenpet, Chennai.

¶15

..Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by 2^nd respondent vide bearing number Ma.A.4.Na.Ka.En/Sirappu/2026 dated 23.05.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent not to take any coercive action on the residential house situated at No. 17/7/1, Kannan Street, Korukkupet,

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 22284 of 2026

¶20

Washermenpet, Chennai without following due process of law.

¶21

For Petitioner:	Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For Respondents:	Mr.A.C.Manibharathi
	Standing Counsel

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner, being an encroacher on the land, has filed the present Writ

¶25

Petition challenging the eviction notice issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation. The petitioner alleges that no opportunity of being heard was given and their explanations dated 27.05.2026 and 05.06.2026 have not yet been disposed.

¶26

2. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner alone was identified and victimised at the instance of the Local Ward Councillor.

¶27

3. We find no merit in the above submissions made by the petitioner. The Greater Chennai Corporation initiated action against the unauthoirsed constructions by issuing notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998, as early as on 19.12.2025. The impugned notice for removal dated 23.05.2026 was only after identifying the encroached portion and affording opportunity to the petitioner. That apart, the plea of discrimination

¶28

__________ Page2 of 4

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 22284 of 2026

¶31

raised by the petitioner cannot be a valid ground to protect an illegal

¶32

encroachment from eviction. The Corporation authorities are directed to remove the illegal encroachment without any discrimination.

¶33

4. With these observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.