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.

K.Mohanraj Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
K.Mohanraj Vs The District CollectorK.Mohanraj v. The District Collector

Dismissed¶¶32

K.Mohanraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Jan 2026WP/327/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of a mandamus petition on grounds of non-joinder and doubtful locus standi: Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.), WP No. 327 of 2026, decided 23-01-2026. Petition under Article 226 sought consideration of a 27/05/2025 representation alleging sale of plots without layout approval; the affected individuals were unnamed and not impleaded; petitioner's status as person aggrieved unclear; dismissed without costs with liberty to file a PIL. Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; representation; layout approval; non-joinder of parties; person aggrieved; locus standi; Public Interest Litigation; Sub Registrar; District Collector; Inspector General for Registration; dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; dismissed without costs, with liberty to name the individuals concerned and lodge a Public Interest Litigation if the requirements are satisfied.

Why is it important?

The individuals alleged to have sold plots without layout approval were neither named in the representation nor joined as respondents; without joining the affected parties as respondents, the petitioner cannot claim relief. ¶¶31

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; dismissed without costs, with liberty to name the individuals concerned and lodge a Public Interest Litigation if the requirements are satisfied.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed, by writ of mandamus, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 27/05/2025 within a stipulated time. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The individuals alleged to have sold plots without layout approval were neither named in the representation nor joined as respondents; without joining the affected parties as respondents, the petitioner cannot claim relief.

Key takeaways

It is unclear how the petitioner qualifies as a person aggrieved or has locus standi.ratio¶¶31
The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.ratio¶¶32
The petitioner remains free to name the individuals concerned and thereafter lodge a Public Interest Litigation if he satisfies the requirements in that regard.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus – WP No. 327 of 2026 (Madras High Court, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J., 23-01-2026): petition under Article 226 sought directions to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 27/05/2025, complaining that others had sold plots without layout approval while the petitioner had duly obtained approval. Held: the individuals allegedly indulging in such sales were neither named in the representation nor joined as respondents, so the petitioner could not claim relief; it was also unclear how the petitioner qualified as a person aggrieved or had locus standi. Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs; liberty reserved to the petitioner to name the individuals concerned and lodge a Public Interest Litigation if he satisfies the requirements in that regard.

A

WP No. 327 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 327 of 2026

K.Mohanraj S/o.Karunakaran, No.8, Paadillam, 15th East Cross Street, Municipal Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Katpadi, Vellore 632006.

..Petitioner

Vs

The District Collector, Collector office, Govt. Estate, Thiruppathur 635601.

Inspector General for Registration, No.120, Santhome Road, Chennai 600 028.

Deputy Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.

District Sub Registration, Collector office, Govt. Estate, Thiruppathur.

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 327 of 2026

5. Sub Registrar,

Nethaji street, Sakkara Kuppam, Jolarpettai,

Thirupathur District.

..Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose the petitioner’s representation dated 27/05/2025 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

For Petitioner: Mr. V. Shanmugasundaram For Respondents: Ms. Akila Rajendran, Govt. Advocate

ORDER

By asserting that the petitioner has duly obtained approval for a layout before selling plots, whereas other individuals have sold plots without obtaining approval for the layout concerned, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on multiple occasions. Because no action was taken thereon, the present writ petition has been filed.

Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for

all the respondents.

__________ Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 327 of 2026

On perusal of the representation, the names of individuals who have

allegedly indulged in sale of plots without approval have not been mentioned. Such persons have also not been joined as respondents in this writ petition. Without joining the affected parties as respondents, the petitioner cannot claim relief. In addition, it is unclear as to how the petitioner qualifies as a person aggrieved or has the locus standi.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. It is, however, open to the petitioner to name the individuals concerned and thereafter lodge a Public Interest Litigation if he satisfies the requirements in that regard.

23-01-2026

Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

kj

To

The District Collector, Collector office, Govt. Estate, Thiruppathur 635601.

Inspector General for Registration,

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 327 of 2026

No.120, Santhome Road, Chennai 600 028.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KJ

Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

No.100, Santhome Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.

District Sub Registration,

Collector office, Govt. Estate, Thiruppathur.

Sub Registrar,

Nethaji street, Sakkara Kuppam, Jolarpettai, Thirupathur District.

WP No. 327 of 2026

23-01-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents should be directed, by writ of mandamus, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 27/05/2025 within a stipulated time.¶¶21
2.
Whether relief can be claimed where the individuals alleged to have sold plots without layout approval are neither named in the representation nor joined as respondents.¶¶30-¶31
The court held
The individuals alleged to have sold plots without layout approval were neither named in the representation nor joined as respondents; without joining the affected parties as respondents, the petitioner cannot claim relief.ratio¶¶31
3.
Whether the petitioner qualifies as a person aggrieved and has locus standi to maintain the writ petition.¶¶31
The court held
It is unclear how the petitioner qualifies as a person aggrieved or has locus standi.ratio¶¶31

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner asserted he had duly obtained layout approval before selling plots, whereas other individuals sold plots without obtaining approval for the layout concerned.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted representations to the respondents on multiple occasions; no action was taken, prompting the writ petition.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Representation dated 27/05/2025 sought its consideration and disposal within a stipulated time fixed by the Court.¶¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
K.Mohanraj S/o.Karunakaran¶¶7
V. Shanmugasundaram
respondent
The District Collector¶¶10
Akila Rajendran
respondent
Inspector General for Registration¶¶11
Akila Rajendran
respondent
Deputy Inspector General of Registration¶¶12
Akila Rajendran
respondent
District Sub Registration¶¶13
Akila Rajendran
respondent
Sub Registrar, Nethaji street, Sakkara Kuppam, Jolarpettai, Thirupathur District¶¶17-¶19
Akila Rajendran

Coram

AI extract

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthyauthor¶¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 23 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 6 Jan 2026
Case no.: WP/327/2026
CNR: HCMA013022552025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WP

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

M.Sivalingam Vs the State of Tamilnadu
22 Jan 2026
Chandira Vs the Secretary to the Government
22 Jan 2026
E.Kannabiran Vs the Inspector General of Registration
22 Jan 2026
Durairaj, Vs The Sub Registrar
23 Jan 2026
M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs The Revisionary Authority and Additional Secretary
23 Jan 2026
Murugesan Vs the District Registrar (Societies)
23 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

K.Mohanraj v. The District Collector, WP/327/2026 (MAD), decided on 23 January 2026.

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

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Petitioner asserted he had duly obtained layout approval before selling plots, whereas other individuals sold plots without obtaining approval for the layout concerned.
Petitioner submitted representations to the respondents on multiple occasions; no action was taken, prompting the writ petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Parties & counsel