Arun Vs The Commissioner

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Na.Ka.No.E/3/018671/2025, dated 12.02.2026, issued by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.4958 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Samidurai For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinayak Standing Counsel

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

Mr.S.Vinayak, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the

¶21

respondents.

¶22

2. The order dated 12.02.2026, passed by the second respondent, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in the Corporation Road, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶23

3. A reading of the impugned order indicates that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the land comprised in Survey No.4783, Block No.96, Ward No.10, of Madurai Corporation, was measured by the respondents and found that a compound wall has been constructed by the petitioner encroaching upon the area earmarked as “Corporation Road”.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.4958 of 2026

¶27

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the compound wall put up by the petitioner 40 years ago and there is a valid patta granted in favour of the petitioner, who have purchased the subject land from the lawful owner in the year 2021 and to that effect, he has produced the revenue records before this Court.

¶28

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that a School has been put up in the patta land. However, the compound wall has been constructed in the area earmarked as “Corporation Road” and for which, he relies upon the Town Survey Land Register, wherein for the subject land to an extent of 0.019.5 Ares, the pattadar's name is mentioned as “Ramuthayammal” and the owner of the land is mentioned as “Commissioner, Madurai Corporation” and also relied upon the Re-Settlement Register, wherein the name of Ramuthayammal as against the subject survey number to an extent of 0.21.00 Ares has been recorded.

¶29

6. From a reading of the above revenue records and the impugned order, we find that over and above the extent of the land, which the petitioner holds, he has put up the construction and the impugned order is only

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.4958 of 2026

¶33

directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in the Corporation Road. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of writ petition.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

23.02.2026

¶37

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

¶38

krk

¶39

Page 4 of 5