Dismissed¶26

Saravanasamy S v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC12 Feb 2026WP(MD)/4064/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari under Article 226 against Tahsildar (Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District) demolition notice dated 30.01.2026; notice consequential to High Court contempt order dated 28.01.2026 in Cont.P.(MD) No.3685 of 2025; natham poramboke land assignment to predecessor subject to ten-year non-alienation moratorium; purchaser before expiry of moratorium period; plea to save construction rejected; writ dismissed, no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) No.3398 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the first respondent, being a consequence of the orders passed by this Court, has no merit. ¶19

Saravanasamy S Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4064 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4064 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.3398 of 2026

S.Saravanasamy

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Tahsildar Ottanchathiram Taluk Dindigul District 2.S.Natchimuthu ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the record relating to the impugned notice in Na.Ka.No.1031/2025/Aa3 of 1^st respondent dated 30.01.2026 for demolition of house and quash the same.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.4064 of 2026

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy for Mr.M.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶19

The order of this Court, dated 28.01.2026, passed in Cont.P.(MD) No.3685 of 2025, is explicit. Pursuant to the said order, the authorities concerned have taken steps to remove the structure put up by the petitioner herein on the subject land, which has been purchased by him contrary to the grant of assignment made to his predecessor. We find no merit in this writ petition, which is challenging the order dated 30.01.2026, passed by the first respondent, which is the consequence of the orders passed by this Court.

¶20

2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land identified as natham poramboke was assigned to the petitioner's predecessor on a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of ten years. However, before expiry of the moratorium period, the petitioner

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.4064 of 2026

¶24

herein has purchased the land from his predecessor and except that, he has not committed any illegality and hence, the construction put up by the petitioner has to be saved.

¶25

3. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the said request.

¶26

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

¶28

12.02.2026

¶29

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶30

krk