Allowed¶34

Ponmani v. The District Collector

Madras HC26 Mar 2026WP(MD)/7717/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act 1905 Section 6 notice; encroachment notice quashed; patta land versus Government land; Survey No.7/1D; temple constructed on patta land; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; Virudhunagar District; Sivakasi Taluk; Anaiyur Panchayat; Revenue Divisional Officer Sivakasi; Tahsildar; Village Administrative Officer; Additional Government Pleader concession erroneous issuance; representation dated 02.03.2026; writ allowed no costs; W.P.(MD)No.7717 of 2026; W.M.P.(MD)No.6297 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 26.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 23.02.2026 issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act quashed; writ petition allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.6297 of 2026) closed. ¶34

Ponmani Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.7717 OF 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.7717 of 2026 and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD)No.6297 of 2026

Ponmani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

The Sub District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk Office, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶17

The Village Administrative Officer, Anaiyur Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶18

Sundari

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

1/4

¶21

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

¶22

2 W.P.(MD)NO.7717 OF 2026

¶23

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 23.02.2026 issued under Sectiion 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act by the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.SMA.Jinnah

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader.

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner questions the impugned order issued under

¶30

Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. According to the petitioner, the land in question is a patta land. It is well settled that Section 6 of the Act can be invoked only if the property belongs to the Government. A copy of the patta has also been enclosed in the typed of papers. It is seen therefrom that Survey No.7/1D is a patta land. It is only on the patta land, the petition mentioned temple has 2/4

¶31

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

¶32

3 W.P.(MD)NO.7717 OF 2026

¶33

been constructed. In fact, the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶34

is fair enough to state that the order appears to have been erroneously issued. Hence, we quash the same. This writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (B.PUGALENDHI, J.)

¶36

26.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶37

To:

¶38