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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the first respondent/District Collector, Dindigul to dispose of the petitioner's pending appeal on merits and in accordance with law within three months; operation of the eviction order to remain stayed till such disposal; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned eviction notice issued by the second respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 03.12.2025, could stand while the petitioner's appeal against the eviction order was pending before the first respondent/District Collector; and whether the District Collector should be directed to dispose of that appeal within a stipulated time.

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent/District Collector is directed to dispose of the petitioner's pending appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Key takeaways

Until disposal of the appeal, the operation of the eviction order shall remain stayed; thereafter the authorities concerned may proceed further in accordance with law depending upon the outcome of the appeal.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Encroachment — Eviction notice under S. 6, Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Na.Ka.4109/2025/a3 dt. 03.12.2025) issued by Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk while petitioner's appeals (dt. 16.09.2025 and 29.08.2025) against the eviction order were pending before the District Collector, Dindigul — Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Art. 226 — Court directed the District Collector to dispose of the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law within three months; operation of the eviction order to remain stayed till such disposal; thereafter authorities free to proceed in accordance with law depending on the appeal's outcome — Writ petition disposed of, connected miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 17.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

W.P.(MD)No.376 of 2026 and

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.357, 358 and 360 of 2026

L.Gopalakrishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

3.The Revenue Inspector, Vedasandur Circle, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

...Respondents.

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4109/2025/A3 dated 03.12.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent/District Collector,

1/5

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

Dindigul to pass final order in the petitioner's appeal dated 16.09.2025, 29.08.2025 within a time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Paranjothi For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

ORDER

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

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the second respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in Na.Ka.4109/2025/a3 dated 03.12.2025 and to direct the first respondent/District Collector, Dindigul to pass orders in the petitioner's appeals dated 16.09.2025, 29.08.2025.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his adjacent land owner, based on whose complaint, the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act has been initiated as against the petitioner. He further contended that without conducting proper survey, the third respondent has issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first

2/5

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

respondent, and the same is pending consideration. In the interregnum, the second respondent has issued the present eviction notice. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3.In view of the above submission that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as against the order of eviction , the first respondent/District Collector is directed to dispose of the appeal, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the operation of the eviction order shall remain stayed. Thereafter, it is open to the authorities concerned to proceed further in accordance with law, depending upon the outcome of the appeal.

4.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 17.03.2026

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta 3/5

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

To

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

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

3.The Revenue Inspector, Vedasandur Circle, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

4/5

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

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

ta

W.P.(MD)No.376 of 2026

17.03.2026

5/5

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