Jeyakumar a Vs The Revenue Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Jeyakumar a Vs The Revenue Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the eviction/rejection order is maintainable when an alternative statutory appeal remedy exists under Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. +1 more

Court's answer

An aggrieved person must exercise the right conferred under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act by preferring an appeal under Section 10A; instead of exhausting the statutory relief the petitioner filed the writ petition, which is not maintainable in view of the available alternative appeal remedy.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the records, the Court found that the authorities proceeded to remove the encroachment only after causing notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and receiving the petitioner's explanation, since the petitioner had no valid title to the portion of land encroached by him; hence the complaint that the order was non-speaking did not warrant interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) — Writ petition against Tahsildar's eviction/rejection order dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner challenged a rejection order dated 19.02.2026 (TKSTLK/2162/2025B2) and consequential eviction notices dated 20.02.2026 (TKSTLK/2162/2025-B2) passed by the Revenue Tahsildar, Tenkasi Taluk, alleging it was a non-speaking order. The Court found that removal of the encroachment was effected only after notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and receipt of the petitioner's explanation, the petitioner having no valid title to the encroached portion. Since an appeal lies under Section 10A of the said Act, the Court held the writ petition not maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy and dismissed it with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD) No.4485 of 2026). Order by Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.; bench comprised Dr. G. Jayachandran and K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ.; dated 26.02.2026.

W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 26.02.2026

CORAM:

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

W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.4485 of 2026

A.Jeyakumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Revenue Tahsildar Tenkasi Taluk Tenkasi District

... Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent in TKSTLK/2162/2025B2 dated 19.02.2026 in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequential eviction notices issued by him in TKSTLK/2162/2025-B2 dated 20.02.2026 and quash the all as ultravires.

Page 1 of 4

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

W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan For Respondent : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

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

The eviction order passed by the respondent directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in the subject land is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, the impugned eviction order passed by the respondent is a non-speaking order and therefore, it has to be interfered with.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that only after causing notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and receiving explanation submitted by him, the authorities concerned have proceeded to remove the encroachment, since the petitioner has no valid title for the portion of the land encroached by him. If at all the petitioner is

Page 2 of 4

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

W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026

aggrieved, he has to exercise the right conferred under the Act by preferring an appeal under Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Instead of exhausting the relief available under the statute, this writ petition has been filed. We are of the firm view that writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the alternative appeal remedy available to the petitioner.

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

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

26.02.2026

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

krk

To: The Revenue Tahsildar, Tenkasi Taluk, Tenkasi District.

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

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

W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

krk

W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.4485 of 2026

26.02.2026

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

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