Dismissed¶38

V.Marimuthu v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC30 Mar 2026WP(MD)/8725/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ of mandamus; removal of encroachment and unauthorized construction; public pathway; Government Anadheenam land; patta cancellation; easmentary right; disputed facts; Survey Nos. 348, 353, 354, 355; Sembattur Village; Pudukottai Taluk; RDO proceedings Ne.Mu.6973/2023/A4 dated 02.09.2025; writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach authority concerned; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

None; mandamus refused. Petitioner given liberty to work out his remedy before the authority concerned in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD) No.7033 of 2026) closed. ¶38

V.Marimuthu Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments and unauthorized constructions made by the sixth respondent in the public pathway and Government Anadheenam lands comprised in S.Nos.348, 353, 354 and 355, Sembattur Village, Pudukottai Taluk, in the light of the fourth respondent's proceedings dated 02.09.2025. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Court found no merit in the writ petition and declined to grant the mandamus sought for removal of the encroachments.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The subject land is classified as “Anadheenam Land”, and the pattas granted to the individuals over it have been cancelled.

¶33

Key takeaways

When there are disputed facts involved and the pattas granted to the private individuals have been subsequently cancelled, the petitioner cannot seek to enforce his easmentary right in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶37
The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the authority concerned in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus under Article 226 seeking removal of encroachments and unauthorized constructions by the sixth respondent on a public pathway and Government Anadheenam lands in S.Nos.348, 353, 354 and 355, Sembattur Village, Pudukottai Taluk, in the light of the fourth respondent's proceedings Ne.Mu.6973/2023/A4 dated 02.09.2025 (by which pattas over the subject property were cancelled), was refused. The Court held that where disputed facts are involved and pattas granted to private individuals have been subsequently cancelled, the petitioner cannot seek to enforce his easmentary right in a writ petition under Article 226. Writ petition dismissed; petitioner left free to work out his remedy before the authority concerned; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) No.7033 of 2026 closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.8725 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.8725 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.7033 of 2026

V.Marimuthu

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chennai-600 005

¶12

2.The District Collector

¶13

O/o.The District Collectorate Pudukottai District

¶14

3.The District Revenue Officer Pudukottai District Pudukottai

¶15

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Pudukottai Taluk Pudukottai District

¶16

__________ Page 1 of 6_

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.8725 of 2026

¶19

5.The Tahsildar Pudukottai Taluk Pudukottai District

¶20

6.K.Senthilkumar

¶21

7.Gunasekaran ... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments and unauthorized constructions made by the sixth respondent in the public pathway and Government Anadheenam lands comprised in S.Nos.348, 353, 354 and 355, situate at Sembattur Village, Pudukottai Taluk, Pudukottai District, in the light of the order passed by the fourth respondent, in his proceedings in Ne.Mu.6973/2023/A4 dated 02.09.2025 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasi Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

[Order of the Court was made by Mr.N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.]

¶27

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachments and unauthorized constructions made by the sixth respondent in the public

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.8725 of 2026

¶31

pathway and Government Anadheenam lands comprised in Survey Nos.348, 353, 354 and 355, situate at Sembattur Village, Pudukottai Taluk, Pudukottai District, in the light of the order passed by the fourth respondent, in his proceedings in Ne.Mu.6973/2023/A4 dated 02.09.2025, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent has encroached upon the public pathway, which obstructs the access of the petitioner to his property. The fourth respondent, vide proceedings dated 02.09.2025, has also cancelled the patta granted to the private respondents in respect of the subject property, which is a pubic pathway. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶33

We have perused the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 02.09.2025. A perusal of the same makes it clear that the pattas that were granted to the individuals in respect of the subject property, over which the sixth respondent is alleged to have made encroachment, have been cancelled. The subject land is classified as “Anadheenam Land”. When there are disputed facts involved and the pattas granted to the

¶34

__________ Page 3 of 6_

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.8725 of 2026

¶37

private individuals have been subsequently cancelled, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot seek to enforce his easmentary right. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶38

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the authority concerned in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

[SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, C.J.] [N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.]

¶40

30.03.2026

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶42

krk

¶43

To:

¶44

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai-600 005.