N.Mohammed Ansari Vs The District Collector

directing the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioners appeals/Representation dated 13.04.2026 submitted against the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Rc. NO.0874/2025/A6 dated 13.03.2026 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the concerned parties and pass

¶18

__________ Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 25651 of 2026

¶21

WP No. 25651 of 2026

¶22

For Petitioner(s):	M/S. T.V.G.Kartheeban
	R.M. Gokulakrishnan
	M. Jayanthi
	D. Deepika
For Respondent(s):	Mr.K.Surendar, GA for RR1 to 3

¶23

Order

¶24

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

¶25

(1) Mr.K.Surendar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶26

(2) Notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with, since no adverse order is passed against the 4^th respondent.

¶27

(3) The learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is illconceived, seeking a mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent, namely, the District Collector, to dispose of the appeal challenging the proceedings daetd 13.03.2026, initiated by the Block Development Officer, Tirukazhukundram. According to the learned Government Advocate, the proceedings of the Block Development Officer, the 2^nd respondent herein, dated 13.03.2026, is a summon issued to the petitioner and the other parties concerned to participate in the enquiry initiated pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 10.06.2025 made in WP.No.16650/2025, to find out whether any encroachment as alleged in the aforesaid writ

¶28

Page2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 25651 of 2026

¶31

petition, was made. The aforesaid writ petition is filed by the present writ petitioner. While so, challenging the summons issued to participate in the enquiry proceedings, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal on 13.04.2026, before the District Collector and the present writ petition is filed for a mandamus seeking disposal of the said appeal. Hence, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as premature and baseless.

¶32

(4) The learned Government Advocate further submitted that pursuant to the summons, dated 13.03.2026, the Block Development Officer has conducted the enquiry in which the petitioner also participated and thereafter, the Block Development Officer, has concluded the enquiry and vide his Report dated 18.03.2026, held that the subject land is not Government land, and not unauthorisedly encroached by the 4^th respondent herein.

¶33

(5) Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner, if at all aggrieved, ought to have challenged the order of the Block Development Officer dated 18.03.2026 and the present appeal which is not sought to be disposed of, is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition seeking mandamus, is also not maintainable.

¶34

Page3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 25651 of 2026

¶37

(6) In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶38

(G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 06-07-2026

¶39

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