Disposed¶38

Balakrishnan v. The District collector

Madras HC10 Jul 2026WP/26566/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.26566 of 2026 (Madras High Court, 10.07.2026, Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) — mandamus; Lok-Adalat compromise decree; enforcement of decree before jurisdictional court; alleged violation of compromise decree; obstruction of access carriageway; Survey Nos.170/2A, 170/2B, 170/2C; Mettupalayam South Village; Veppanthattai Taluk; Perambalur District; no statutory obligation of official respondents (police and revenue authorities); Article 226; writ disposed of with liberty; suit for permanent injunction; private respondents S.Srinivasan, S.Divya, Krishnamurthy; representation dated 19.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the relief sought in the writ petition; no order as to costs. ¶38

Balakrishnan Vs The District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the relief sought in the writ petition; no order as to costs.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 7 to forbear respondents 8 to 10 from obstructing the petitioner, his family members and other lawful users from using the access carriageway in Survey Nos.170/2A, 170/2B and 170/2C, Mettupalayam South Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District, to remove the obstructions, and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2025. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

If the private respondents have wilfully violated the compromise decree passed by the Lok-Adalat, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional court for enforcement of the decree or for appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The official respondents do not have any statutory obligation to initiate action against the private respondents merely on the ground of an alleged violation of the compromise decree.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — petitioner sought directions to official respondents (District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Inspector of Police and Village Administrative Officer) to forbear private respondents (respondents 8 to 10) from obstructing his use of the access carriageway in Survey Nos.170/2A, 170/2B and 170/2C, Mettupalayam South Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District, and to consider his representation dated 19.12.2025 — the petitioner's earlier suit for permanent injunction against the private respondents had ended in a Lok-Adalat compromise decree, allegedly violated — held: if the private respondents have wilfully violated the Lok-Adalat compromise decree, the appropriate remedy is to approach the jurisdictional court for enforcement of the decree or for appropriate action in accordance with law; the official respondents have no statutory obligation to initiate action against the private respondents merely on the ground of an alleged violation of the compromise decree — writ petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.26566 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.07.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

W.P.No.26566 of 2026

Balakrishnan

Petitioner(s)

Vs.

1.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Perambalur District Perambalur.

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Veppanthattai Taluk Perambalur District.

¶11

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Thuraimangalam, Perambalur.

¶12

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur.

¶13

5.The Tahsildar Veppanthattai Taluk Perambalur District.

¶14

6.The Inspector of Police V.Kalathur police Station Perambalur District.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.26566 of 2026

¶18

7.The Village Administrative Officer V.Kalathur Veppanthattai Taluk Perambalur District.

8.S.Srinivasan

9.S.Divya

10.Krishnamurthy

Respondent(s)

Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 8 to 10 their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through or under them, from in any manner obstructing, interfering with, or preventing the petitioner, his family members and other lawful users from using the access carriageway in Survey Nos.170/2A, 170/2B and 170/2C situated at Mettupalayam South Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District and further direct the removal of all illegal obstructions and restoration of the said pathway to its original condition and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 7 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 19.12.2025.

¶24

For Petitioner : Ms.N.Lavanya For Respondents : Mr.P.Siddarth for R1, R4, R5 & R7 Government Counsel Mr.Durai Gunasekaran Government Counsel for R2, R3 & R6

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

W.P.No.26566 of 2026

¶29

Mr.P.Siddarth, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of

¶30

respondents 1, 4, 5 and 7, and Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 6.

¶31

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 7 to forbear respondents 8 to 10 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties.

¶32

3. The petitioner submits that he had earlier instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the private respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their dispute before the Lok-Adalat, and a compromise decree came to be passed. According to the petitioner, despite the said settlement, respondents 8 to 10 continue to interfere with his peaceful possession of the property.

¶33

4. If the private respondents have wilfully violated the compromise decree passed by the Lok-Adalat, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional court for enforcement of the decree or for appropriate action in accordance with law. The official respondents do not

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.26566 of 2026 have any statutory obligation to initiate action against the private respondents

¶37

merely on the ground of an alleged violation of the compromise decree.

¶38

5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, reserving liberty

¶39

to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for the relief sought in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.