Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mrs.Ruby Selina Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Mrs.Ruby Selina Vs the District CollectorMrs.Ruby Selina v. the District Collector

Disposed¶¶34

Mrs.Ruby Selina v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Jul 2026WP/26269/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ruby Selina v. District Collector, Tiruvallur and others - High Court of Judicature at Madras, WP No. 26269 of 2026 (connected WMP No. 28691 of 2026), decided 09-07-2026, coram Dr. G. Jayachandran J. and N. Mala J. Certiorari challenge to Section 7 notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 issued by Revenue Inspector, Ponneri dated 25.06.2026 classifying occupied land as 'public street'; Court: possession cannot be retained after road-expansion acquisition despite possible factual defects in the notice; liberty to seek compensation upon proof of title; petition disposed of, no costs, connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the above observations; petitioner at liberty to seek adequate compensation upon establishing title over the land under acquisition; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No. 28691 of 2026) closed.

Why is it important?

Although the notice issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri dated 25.06.2026 may be factually defective, the petitioner's right to retain possession after acquisition proceedings cannot be protected. ¶¶29

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the above observations; petitioner at liberty to seek adequate compensation upon establishing title over the land under acquisition; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No. 28691 of 2026) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Section 7 notice dated 25.06.2026 issued by the Revenue Inspector under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 should be quashed by a writ of certiorari. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Although the notice issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri dated 25.06.2026 may be factually defective, the petitioner's right to retain possession after acquisition proceedings cannot be protected.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to seek adequate compensation, if title over the property/land now under process of acquisition is established.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. G. Jayachandran J., authoring the order; N. Mala J.) disposed of a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash a Section 7 notice dated 25.06.2026 issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which treated the land in the petitioner's occupation as 'public street'. The petitioner claimed title through a Settlement Deed and submitted that the Highways Department had recognised her title in 2018 and promised compensation for the land sought for road expansion. The Court held that even accepting that the land was sought to be acquired for expansion of road for a public purpose, and although the notice may be factually defective, the petitioner's right to retain possession after acquisition proceedings cannot be protected; the petitioner was granted liberty to seek adequate compensation upon establishing title over the property/land under process of acquisition. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

A

WP No. 26269 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

WP No. 26269 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 28691 OF 2026

Mrs.Ruby Selina D/o.Devadoss, No.22c, lakshmi nagar, 7th main road, vinayagapuram, chennai - 600099.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The District Collector

Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District - 602001.

The Revenue Divisional Officer ponneri revenue divisional office, ponneri, Tiruvallur District - 601204.

The Tahsildar ponneri taluk office, ponneri, Tiruvallur District - 601204.

The Revenue Inspector, Minjur Firka, Ponneri taluk, Tiruvallur District.

..Respondent(s)

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned notice of the 4th respondent dated 25.06.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 26269 of 2026

WP No. 26269 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Suresh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surendar, Ga

Order

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

(1) Mr.K.Surendar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2) The order impugned in this writ petition is the Section 7 Notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The notice indicates that the land in occupation of the petitioner is classified as ‘’public street’’.

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as early as in the year 2018, the Highways Department had recognized the title of the petitioner herein and had promised to compensate the land sought to be acquired for the expansion of the road. He would further submit that through a Settlement Deed, the petitioner has acquired the title over the property.

(4) Even according to the writ petitioner, the land in dispute has been sought to be acquired for expansion of road for public purpose, while so, the notice issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri, dated 25.06.2026, factually may be defective, nonetheless, the right of the petitioner to retain the possession after acquisition proceedings, cannot be protected.

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 26269 of 2026

(5) Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to seek for adequate compensation if he has the title over the property /land which is now under the process of acquisition.

(6) With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 09-07-2026

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

AP

To

The District Collector Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District - 602001.

The Revenue Divisional Officer ponneri revenue divisional office, ponneri, Tiruvallur District - 601204.

The Tahsildar ponneri taluk office, ponneri, Tiruvallur District - 601204.

The Revenue Inspector, Minjur Firka, Ponneri taluk, Tiruvallur District.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 26269 of 2026

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. AND N.MALA J.

AP

WP No. 26269 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 28691 OF 2026

09-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned Section 7 notice dated 25.06.2026 issued by the Revenue Inspector under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 should be quashed by a writ of certiorari.¶¶18
2.
Whether the petitioner can retain possession of the disputed land (claimed under a Settlement Deed and sought for road-expansion acquisition) after acquisition proceedings.medium confidence¶¶29
The court held
Although the notice issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri dated 25.06.2026 may be factually defective, the petitioner's right to retain possession after acquisition proceedings cannot be protected.ratio¶¶29

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶18
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905Section 7¶¶27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Section 7 notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri (4th respondent), dated 25.06.2026, indicating the land in the petitioner's occupation is classified as 'public street'; challenged by writ of certiorari as arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.¶¶27
Revenue Inspector, Ponneri (4th respondent) · 25.06.2026
Prior proceeding
By consent, the main writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself; the learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the respondents.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Per the impugned notice, the land in occupation of the petitioner is classified as 'public street'.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 2018 the Highways Department recognised the petitioner's title and promised compensation for the land sought for road expansion, and that the petitioner acquired title through a Settlement Deed.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Even according to the petitioner, the disputed land is sought to be acquired for expansion of road for a public purpose.¶¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mrs. Ruby Selina D/o. Devadoss¶¶9
R.Suresh Kumar
respondent
The District Collector, Tiruvallur¶¶39
K.Surendar
respondent
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri¶¶40
K.Surendar
respondent
The Tahsildar, Ponneri¶¶41
K.Surendar
respondent
The Revenue Inspector, Minjur Firka, Ponneri Taluk¶¶42
K.Surendar

Coram

AI extract

Dr. G. Jayachandranauthor¶¶25
N. Malamember¶¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 9 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 6 Jul 2026
Case no.: WP/26269/2026
CNR: HCMA011500422026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: G. Jayachandran N. Mala
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: WP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G. Jayachandran N. Mala

N.Mohammed Ansari Vs The District Collector
6 Jul 2026
Mayuri Electronics Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
6 Jul 2026
Balu Kumaran Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer II
6 Jul 2026
Narayanasamy Vs the District Collector
9 Jul 2026
Sivakumar Vs the Secretary to Government
9 Jul 2026
M.Anjammal Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu
9 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Mrs.Ruby Selina v. the District Collector, WP/26269/2026 (MAD), decided on 9 July 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905Section 7

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Section 7 notice under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 issued by the Revenue Inspector, Ponneri (4th respondent), dated 25.06.2026, indicating the land in the petitioner's occupation is classified as 'public street'; challenged by writ of certiorari as arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.Revenue Inspector, Ponneri (4th respondent) · 25.06.2026
By consent, the main writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself; the learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of the respondents.
Per the impugned notice, the land in occupation of the petitioner is classified as 'public street'.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala

Parties & counsel