Dismissed¶36

G.Shah Nawaz v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Jan 2026WP/26144/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory mandamus; writ of mandamus; demolition; Chengalpattu District; Urappakam Village; Kattankolathur Panchayat Union; Old Survey No. 94/2A2; New Survey No. 94/1B; Patta 2051; 875 sq.ft.; bonafide purchaser; representation dated 20.09.2022; hypothetical writ petition; status quo vacated 29.09.2022; no costs; due process; principles of natural justice; Article 226 Constitution of India; District Collector; Thasildar; Block Development Officer; Madras High Court; Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:110; WP No. 26144 of 2022; WMP No. 25228 of 2022; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed, interim status quo order dated 29.09.2022 vacated, no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petition (WMP No. 25228 of 2022) also dismissed; clarification recorded that any future proceedings shall follow law and natural justice.

G.Shah Nawaz Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents not to initiate any legal proceedings for demolition of the petitioner's property at Urappakam Village, Chengalpattu District (Old Survey No. 94/2A2, New Survey No. 94/1B, Patta 2051, admeasuring 875 sq.ft.), and whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2022. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Insofar as presently there is no action taken against the property in question, the question of issuing a mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate proceedings does not arise.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

No mandamus can be issued as against proceedings that are taken legally and following due process.

¶29

Key takeaways

The substratum of the writ petition is clearly hypothetical, based on assumptions and presumptions, and the Court is not inclined to entertain it.ratio¶30
Clarification: if at all the respondents initiate proceedings against the property in question, the same shall be in accordance with law and in line with the principles of natural justice.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus refused in anticipation — High Court of Judicature at Madras, WP No. 26144 of 2022 (decided 08-01-2026) by Dr. Anita Sumanth J. and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J. Petitioner, claiming to be a bonafide purchaser of property at No. 4, Urappakam Village, Chengalpattu District (Old Survey No. 94/2A2, New Survey No. 94/1B, Patta 2051, admeasuring 875 sq.ft.), sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 restraining the revenue authorities from initiating demolition proceedings and a direction to consider his representation dated 20.09.2022. Held: (i) since no action had been taken against the property, no mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate proceedings could issue; (ii) no mandamus lies against proceedings taken legally and following due process; (iii) the substratum of the petition was clearly hypothetical, based on assumptions and presumptions. Petition dismissed; status quo order dated 29.09.2022 vacated; no costs; connected WMP No. 25228 of 2022 dismissed. Court clarified that any future proceedings against the property shall be in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.

¶1

2026:MHC:110

¶2

WP No. 26144 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 08-01-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶9

WP No. 26144 of 2022ANDWMP NO. 25228 OF 2022

¶10

G.Shah NawazS/o. Gulab, No. 88, Othavadai Street, kodampakkam chennai 24

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

The District CollectorDistrict Collectorate office, Chengalpet district

¶14

The District Revenue officerChengalpet District

¶15

The Revenue Divisional officerChengalpet, Chengalpet District

¶16

The ThasildarChengalpet Taluk office, Chengalpet District

¶17

The Block Development officer / commissionerKattankolathur panchayat union Kattankolathur chengalpet taluk chengalpet District

¶18

..Respondent(s)

¶19

PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not initiate any legal proceeding as to which demolition of petitioner property at Chengalpattu District, No. 4, urappakam Village, Situated between kattankolathur panchayat union and urappakkam (Panchayat Union) old No. Survey No. 94/2A2, New Survey No. 94/1B as per Patta 2051 Extent of 875 sq., Ft., and consequently thereby direct the respondents to herein to consider the petitioner representation dated 20.09.2022 in accordance with law

¶20

__________Page 1 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

WP No. 26144 of 2022

¶23

WP No. 26144 of 2022

¶24

For Petitioner(s): S.Senthilvel For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Ravi Spl GP

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶27

The prayer of the petitioner is for a Mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate any legal proceeding in regard to demolition of the property at Chengalpattu District, No. 4, Urappakam Village, situated between Kattankolathur Panchayat Union and Urappakkam (Panchayat Union) old Survey No. 94/2A2, New Survey No. 94/1B as per Patta 2051 ad measuring 875 sq., ft. (‘property’/’property in question’). He seeks a consequential direction to consider his representation dated 20.09.2022.

¶28

Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question and anticipates coercive action be taken by the authorities in respect of the property in question.

¶29

Insofar as presently there is no action taken as against the property in question, the question of issuing a mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate proceedings does not arise. No mandamus can be issued as against proceedings that are taken legally and following due process.

¶30

The substratum of the Writ Petition is clearly hypothetical, based on assumptions and presumptions and we are not inclined to entertain the same. Having said so, we clarify that if at all the respondents initiate

¶31

__________Page 2 of 4

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 26144 of 2022

¶34

proceedings as against the property in question, the same shall be in accordance

¶35

with law and in line with the principles of natural justice.

¶36