Madras High Court
Venkatesan vs The District Collector on 24 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.4938 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.4938 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.3584 of 2025
Venkatesan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Vedasandur, Dindigul District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Vadamadurai Town Panchayat,
Vadamadurai.
4.The President,
Vadamadurai Town Panchayat,
Vadamadurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from disturbing the
business of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.7 near Gandhi Statue,
Vadamadurai, Vadamadurai Town, Dindigul District, based on the auction
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4938 of 2025
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5 of 2024, dated 01.10.2024, by the third respondent
by allowing the above Writ Petition, within a time frame as may be fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balasubramanian
For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar
Special Government Pleader
For R3 and R4 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to forbear the respondents from disturbing
the business of the petitioner in respect of Shop No.7 near Gandhi Statue,
Vadamadurai, Vadamadurai Town, Dindigul District, based on the auction
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5 of 2024, dated 01.10.2024, by the third respondent.
2. With the consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for
final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional
Collector allotted shops on ground rent to 10 individuals near the Gandhi Statue
at Vadamadurai Town, Dindigul District. When the executive authorities
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attempted to evict the petitioner, he instituted a suit, which was dismissed. The
dismissal was upheld in both the Appeal Suit and the Second Appeal. Now, the
third respondent has called for an auction of the ground rent shops, one of which
the petitioner is operating for his livelihood. However, all the shops were
subsequently taken by the friends and the relatives of the fourth respondent.
Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1
and 2 submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is an
encroacher and was temporarily allowed to occupy a portion based on an order
passed in 1977. Subsequently, he filed a suit, which was dismissed by the trial
Court. Thereafter, he preferred first appeal and the same was also dismissed.
Aggrieved over the same, he filed S.A.(MD)No.1068 of 2011, which was also
dismissed by this Court, vide judgment dated, 27.08.2021. The relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as under:-
''4. The Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff
was paying ground rent to the local body and had put up a superstructure
and running a petty business which is adjacent to road. It has been
established beyond doubt. Even according to the plaintiff, the suit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property belonged to the local body and it was let out on payment of
ground rent. Merely because, the plaintiff was allowed to be a licensee
for a long number of years, that will not confer any right to continue in
possession. This is a well settled proposition. That is why, the trial Court
declined to grant the relief of declaration and permanent possession
against the defendants. No substantial questions of law arises for
consideration. At the same time, I must also hold that when the appellant
is in possession of the suit site, the respondents will have to follow due
process of law before evicting the appellant. Merely because this appeal
has been dismissed, that does not necessarily mean that the appellant
should be evicted. I have only sustained the judgment of the Courts below
that the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief of declaration, nor the
defendants can be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction. That
does not mean that the appellant should be thrown out. It is a policy
decision that has to be taken by the defendants. If the defendants take a
policy decision to evict the plaintiff, then they have to necessarily follow
the procedure set out in the relevant statute.
5. With this observation and clarification, this second appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.''
5. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that
subsequent to the said judgment, a fresh auction notice has also been issued.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Special Government
Pleader, this Court finds that the Writ Petition lacks merit and therefore, the same
is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No 24.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To:-
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Vedasandur, Dindigul District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Vadamadurai Town Panchayat,
Vadamadurai.
4.The President,
Vadamadurai Town Panchayat,
Vadamadurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
24.02.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
