Dismissed¶29

P.Karuppaiya v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Jun 2026WP(MD)/10960/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P(MD)No.10960 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; N.Sathish Kumar J. and M.Jothiraman J.; PIL writ of mandamus; encroachment eviction; 16.5 ares; Survey No.387/1; Palakkanuthu Village; Dindigul West Taluk; Anganwadi building; 2C Patta dated 01.12.2023; locus standi of distant resident; Government land; writ petition dismissed 04.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit, particularly the 2C Patta issued in favour of the third respondent, it cannot presently be contended that respondents 3 and 4 are encroachers. ¶28

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

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10960 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10960 of 2026

P.Karuppaiya

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶12

3.Mohan

¶13

4.Megala ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to remove the encroachments made by the third and fourth respondents in the land in Survey No.387/1 situated at Palakkanuthu Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.10960 of 2026

¶18

District measuring to an extent of 16.5 ares by following due process of law by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 27.02.2026.

¶19

For Petitioner	: Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For R1 & R2	: Mr.B.Saravanan
	Senior Counsel
	for Mr.M.P.Senthil Counsel for State of Tamilnadu
For R3 & R4	: Mr.T.Mohan
	Senior Counsel
	for Mr.P.Chellapandian

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶22

This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking eviction of respondents 3 and 4, who are alleged to have encroached upon an extent of 16.5 ares of land.

¶23

2.The case of the petitioner is that the property in question is Government land and that there is a proposal by the Government to construct an Anganwadi building on the said land. However, according to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 are in unauthorized occupation of the property and, therefore, the encroachment is liable to be removed.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.10960 of 2026

¶27

3.The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, in respect of Survey No. 387/1, a 2C Patta was issued in his favour on 01.12.2023. It is also stated that the respondent has cultivated coconut trees in the said property. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied.

¶28

A perusal of the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit, particularly the 2C Patta issued in favour of the third respondent, shows that it cannot presently be contended that the respondent 3 & 4 are an encroachers. So long as the patta stands in the name of the respondents 3 & 4, it is for the Government to take appropriate action, if so advised. Further, the petitioner is stated to be residing about 25 kilometres away from the locality concerned and, therefore, lacks the necessary locus standi to maintain the present Public Interest Litigation.

¶29

5.We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶30

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 04.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.10960 of 2026

¶34

¶35