Dismissed¶39

D. Sangeetha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Feb 2026WP/4974/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 4974 of 2026 dismissed; encroachment removal ordered by District Collector Namakkal (Na.Ka.No. 4657/2024/L2 dated 06.03.2024) upheld; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus refused; representation dated 09.02.2024 undisposed; alternative land offer; G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 10.05.2022 Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Land Disposal Wing, LD3(1) Section treated as guideline giving no vested right; encroacher has no equity or legal right to mandamus; RDO and Tahsildar Kumarapalayam; eviction; no costs; Tamil Nadu revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

Though the petitioner submitted a representation, it is for the authorities to consider the representation and act in accordance with law. ¶38

D. Sangeetha Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

2026:MHC:636

¶2

WP No. 4974 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 12-02-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶9

WP No. 4974 of 2026

D. Sangeetha

..Petitioner(s)

The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶14

Rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Secretary,

¶15

Chennai -600 009.

¶16

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai -600 005.

¶17

The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶18

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal District.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal.

¶20

..Respondent(s)

¶21

__________ Page1 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 4974 of 2026

¶24

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No. 4657/2024/L2 dated 06.03.2024 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s pending representation dated 09.02.2024 as per the conditions laid down in G.O. (Ms).No. 201 dated 10.05.2022

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Dinuprashanth For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed to assail the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 06.03.2024, by and which the District Collector has directed the authorities to remove the encroachments in respect of the subject property.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly admit that they have encroached upon the property, and for which, they have given a representation to the authorities to consider the alternative land offered by them as per G.O.Ms.No.201, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Land Disposal Wing, LD3(1) Section, dated 10.05.2022.

¶30

It is the specific submission of the petitioner that such representation

¶31

was given on 09.02.2024, and the same has not been disposed by the authority. In the meanwhile, they are attempting to evict the petitioner without considering the representation.

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 4974 of 2026

¶35

Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that

¶36

G.O.Ms.No.201, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Land Disposal Wing, LD3(1) Section, dated 10.05.2022 is only a guideline, which will not give any vested right to the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus and that the petitioner being an encroacher, he has no equity to seek such a relief.

¶37

We have given our anxious consideration to either side of the parties.

¶38

Admittedly, the petitioner has encroachment upon the subject land, and that the District Collector had already instructed the authorities to remove such encroachment. Though the petitioner submitted a representation, it is for the authorities to consider the representation and act in accordance with law. However, petitioner has no vested right to seek a prayer to direct the authorities to accept the land offered by the petitioner, and nor he has any legal right.

¶39

In view of the above reasons, we do not find any valid reason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶40

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 12-02-2026

¶41

Index: Yes/No

¶42

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

¶43

Page3 of 5

¶44

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

¶45

WP No. 4974 of 2026