Dismissed¶35

P.Lokesh v. the Commissioner

Madras HC6 Apr 2026WP/29091/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam and K. Surender JJ., order dated 06-04-2026 in WP No. 29091 of 2023 (P. Lokesh v. Commissioner, Poonamallee Panchayat Union and others): writ petition seeking mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 4 from creating road access to the fifth respondent's land in Survey No. 80 through the petitioner's private lands was dismissed without merits adjudication because a civil suit was already filed; encroachment reported removed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Since a civil suit has already been filed, no further adjudication is required; the writ petition is dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ¶35

P.Lokesh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

2026:MHC:1414

¶2

WP No. 29091 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 06-04-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶9

WP No. 29091 of 2023 and

¶10

WP No.28687 of 2023

P.Lokesh

..Petitioner

The Commissioner, Poonamallee Panchayat Union, Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.

¶15

The Assistant Block Development Officer, (Administration), Poonamallee Panchayat Union, Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Poonamalee Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶17

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶18

V.Vignesh

¶19

..Respondents

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the Respondents 1 to 4 herein, from and in any manner creating a road/ access for the property owned by the 5th respondent in Survey No. 80 by connecting the same to the roads within the layout of SPE Mono City through the Private lands owned by the petitioner

¶21

Page1 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 29091 of 2023

¶24

and his brother admeasuring Ac. 1.43 Cents comprised in Survey Nos. 35/3 Part, 78 Part, 79 Part, 116/2 Part, 117/2 Part , 119/3 Part , 119/1 Part, 34/4A

¶25

and 4B of Pidarithangal Village .

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Ramakrishnan for M/s. Ark Law Associates

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3

¶28

Mrs.P.Veena Suresh, Standing Counsel for R4

¶29

Mr.P.Krishnan for R5

¶30

Order

¶31

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a civil suit has

¶33

been filed.

¶34

2. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that the encroachment has already been removed.

¶35

3. Be that as it may, since a civil suit has already been filed, no further adjudication is required and the Writ Petition stands dismissed . No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶36

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 06-04-2026

¶37

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

¶38

Page2 of 4

¶39

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

¶40

WP No. 29091 of 2023

¶41

¶42