C.Harigovindan Vs The Collector

¶1

W.P.No.4217 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.4217 of 2026

¶7

C.Harigovindan, Son of Chinnasami Padayachi, No.22/9 (Old No.59/9), North Street, Patteeswaram Village, C.N.Palayam Post, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Cuddalore.

¶13

4.The Village Administrative Officer, C.N.Palayam, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶14

5.The Taluk Surveyor, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶15

6.The Block Development Officer, Cuddalore Panchayat Union, Cuddalore – 607 001.

¶16

__________ Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.4217 of 2026

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

7.The Executive Officer, C.N.Palayam Panchayat, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the Respondents from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful enjoyment of the properties bearing Old S.Nos.212 = New S.Nos.399/9, 399/10, 399/11, 399/12, 399/13, 399/14, 399/15, 399/16, 399/17, 399/18 and 399/19 measuring 0.70 Cents in Patteeswaram (C.N.Palayam) Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.B.Rohith for Mr.D.Baskaar For Respondents : Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, Government Counsel

¶23

ORDER

¶24

With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

The relief sought in this Writ Petition is to forbear the Respondents from in any manner interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties measuring an extent of 0.70 Cents comprised in Old S.Nos.212 = New S.Nos.399/9, 399/10, 399/11, 399/12, 399/13, 399/14, 399/15, 399/16, 399/17, 399/18 & 399/19 situated at Patteeswaram (C.N.Palayam) Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District (hereinafter referred to as “subject properties”).

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.4217 of 2026

¶29

The case of the Petitioner is that the subject properties were originally

¶30

belonged to Petitioner’s father viz., Mr.Chinnasami Padayachi. The Petitioner has half share in the subject properties and the remaining half share belongs to the Petitioner’s deceased brother Venkatesan. The Petitioner’s family and his deceased brother’s family are living in the three houses situated in subject

¶31

properties. While so, one Mr.Sivamani had trespassed into the property comprised in S.No.399/16 and constructed a house in the said property. Therefore, Petitioner filed an original suit in O.S.No.245 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore for the relief of recovery of property comprised in S.No.399/16 from said Sivamani. The said suit was transferred to Sub-Court, Neyveli and renumbered as O.S.No.266 of 2021. While O.S.No.245 of 2015 is pending, the said Sivamani had died. Subsequently, another person viz., Mr.Balakrishnan had encroached the property comprised in S.Nos.399/18 & 399/19 and constructed a house. That apart, the deceased Sivamani’s family and said Balakrishnan intended to lay a road across the Petitioner’s properties and thus, Respondents 4 & 5 attempted to conduct a survey on the subject properties on 28.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner sent a Representation dated 29.12.2023 to the Respondents 1 to 5, requesting not to make any attempts to trespass into his properties. After the receipt of his representation, Respondents 1 to 5 had temporarily stopped such attempts. However, during the month of December, 2025, once again Respondents 1 to 5 have attempted to lay a road on Petitioner’s properties. Therefore, Petitioner

¶32

Page3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.4217 of 2026

¶35

has made a Representation dated 31.12.2025 before the Respondents, requesting not to make any attempts to lay a road across his properties. However, Respondents have not yet considered the Petitioner’s Representation. Hence, left with no other alternative, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra .

¶36

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶37

Considering the limited relief sought by the Petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the Respondents 3 to 7 to consider the Petitioner’s Representation dated 31.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing a notice affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as any other interested parties.

¶38