Dismissed¶37

Kamaraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Mar 2026WP/9711/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, WP No. 9711 of 2026, decided 13-03-2026 (S.M. Subramaniam & K. Surender, JJ.): dismissal of writ petition by Kamaraj against Tahsildar (Avadi taluk) notice for removal of encroachments on a dead end public road; Writ Court cannot direct purchase/sale of public road land; encroachment on public road impermissible even if dead end; enforcement followed earlier Court direction in WP.No.31758 of 2018 (15.02.2024); respondents include District Collector Thiruvallur, Commissioner and BDO Villivakkam Panchayat Union, Executive Officer Ayapakkam Panchayat, and S. Srinivasan; Article 226 certiorari; counsel: S.Senthilvel (petitioner), T.Arunkumar (AGP R1&2), A.Anandan (Govt. Adv. R3-5).

What did the court decide?

Regarding purchase of the property, the Writ Court cannot issue any direction. ¶34

Kamaraj Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

2026:MHC:1125

¶2

WP No. 9711 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 13-03-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶9

WP No. 9711 of 2026

Kamaraj

..Petitioner(s)

The District Collector Thiruvallur District.

¶14

The Tahsildar office of the Avadi taluk office, Avadi, Chennai-54

¶15

The Commissioner Villivakkam Panchayat Union, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053

¶16

The Block Development officer Villivakkam (Village) Panchayat Union, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053

¶17

The Executive Officer Ayapakkam Panchayat Ayapakkam, Chennai-77

¶18

S.Srinivasan

¶19

..Respondent(s)

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Na.Ka. No.1530/ 2018 / AA1 by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

¶21

Page1 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 9711 of 2026

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader for R1&2 Mr.A.Anandan Government Advocate for R3-5

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

Notice issued by the Tahsildar asking the petitioner to remove the encroachments in public road vide Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1530/2018/ AA1, dated 23.02.2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that residential house belongs to the petitioner situated in a dead end road, and constructions are made in the dead end road without causing any obstruction to other residents in that locality. That apart, petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the portion of the road property by paying the consideration. Thus, this Court may consider and pass necessary orders.

¶29

Learned Additional Government Pleader would oppose by stating that

¶30

authorities found that the subject road is a street. Encroachments are identified on the public road. Petitioner beyond his land put up construction and encroached upon the public road. Thus, notice came to be issued. Enforcement action is initiated pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in WP.No.31758 of 2018, dated 15.02.2024.

¶31

__________ Page2 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 9711 of 2026

¶34

This Court is of the considered view that regarding purchase of the property, Writ Court cannot issue any direction. Admittedly, petitioner encroached upon the dead end public road. Therefore, enforcement action initiated by the authorities cannot be termed as perverse. Once encroachments are identified in the public road, even if it is a dead end road, no person can encroach upon such land which is meant for public usage.

¶35