Madras High Court
Mrs.D.Kasthuri vs The Commissioner on 14 July, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
2025:MHC:1682
W.P.No.10098 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.10098 of 2021
&
W.M.P.No.10727 of 2021
1. Mrs.D.Kasthuri
2. Mrs.V.Yuvabharathi ... Petitioners
vs.
1. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building
Chennai - 600 003
2. The Zonal Officer
Zone-X
Greater Chennai Corporation
LB Road, Adyar
Chennai - 600 020
3. The Tahsildar
Velacherry Taluk
Velacherry
Chennai - 600 042
Page Nos.1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
W.P.No.10098 of 2021
4. Mr.Umapathy
5. Mrs.Thenmozhi
6. Mrs.Sujatha Sivakumar
7. Mr.Murugesan ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of mandamus directing 1st and 2nd respondents to remove the
encroachments made by Respondents 4 to 7 on the Indira Salai (Bharathi
Road), Kamarajapuram, Velachery, Chennai - 600 042 as per the provisions
of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules made
thereunder.
For petitioners : Mr.Jaishankar Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr. S.Gopinathan
for R1 and R2
Mr.K.Suresh
Government Advocate for R3
Mr.R.Natarajan for R6
No Appearance for R4, R5 and R7
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]
Subject matter of captioned 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of
brevity] is 'lands comprised in T.S.Nos.46 and 48, both in Ward No.001,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
Velachery (Part 1), Velachery Taluk, Chennai District' [hereinafter 'said
lands' for the sake of brevity and convenience].
2. Prayer in the captioned WP is one for mandamus qua official
respondents as regards 'Removal of Encroachment' ['RoE'] qua said lands.
3. Mr.Jaishankar Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for writ petitioners
adverting to photocopies of revenue records (extracts from 'Permanent
Land Register' {PLR}) contends that said lands are Government
Poramboke lands.
4. Learned State counsel for official respondents, on instructions,
submits that a survey of said lands has already been done on 11.07.2025
and encroachments have been noticed.
5. Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel for private respondent (R6)
points out that there are as many as three civil suits qua said lands in
which either of the writ petitioners is a party and three suits have either
been dismissed or decreed but there is no whisper about the three suits in
the writ affidavit. Learned counsel vehemently contends that this is
suppression and an order dated 07.02.2019 in W.P.No.25355 of 2018 in
N.Umapathy's case [N.Umapathy Vs. The Secretary to Government,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
Revenue Department] rendered by another Hon'ble Division Bench was
pressed into service in support of this contention i.e., contention to say that
the captioned WP should be dismissed on the ground of suppression.
6. At the outset, we find that the factual position regarding earlier
suits are as follows:
i) O.S.No.1525 of 1994 was filed by first writ petitioner
against four private individuals with mandatory injunction
prayer and the mandatory injunction is for removal of
constructions put up in suit passage and the suit property has
been described as Old Door No.13, New Door No.16, Bharathi
Street, Sankaran Avenue, Velacherry Road, Madras -32 in
Corporation Division Old No.147, New No.141 in Guindy
Mambalam Taluk with right to use 5 feet common passage from
30 feet road in Sankaran Avenue;
ii) O.S.No.2366 of 1994 was filed by vendor of R6
(R.Nirmala) with a bare injunction prayer. In this suit, I writ
petitioner (Kasthuri) is the lone defendant. This suit is for
permanent injunction qua possession and the suit property has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
been described as T.S.Nos.47, 48, 49 and 50 (part) in Plot
Nos.115, 115-A, 114, 113 part, in Velachery Village,
Mambalam Guindy Taluk.
iii) There was joint trial of aforesaid two suits and XIV
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in and by a common
judgment dated 31.12.2002 dismissed the former suit
(O.S.No.1525 of 1994) filed by the writ petitioner and decreed
the latter suit (O.S.No.2366 of 1994) filed by vendor of R6
(Nirmala);
iv) We notice that as regards said lands, T.S.No.48 forms
part of aforesaid two decrees;
v) Third suit is O.S.No.1387 of 2009 was filed by the
writ petitioners with permanent injunction prayer qua
possession. The survey numbers are T.S.Nos.47, 48 and 49. In
this suit filed by the writ petitioners, Chennai Corporation is
D4. Neither R6 nor vendor of R6 (Nirmala) are parties. The
suit was originally decreed on 12.02.2016, carried in appeal by
D2 (Murugesa Naicker) vide A.S.No.240 of 2016, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
disposed of by the first appellate Court by judgment dated
22.12.2017 (first Appellate Court is XIX Additional Judge's
Court, City Civil Court, Chennai) but there was a remand
setting aside the decree. Post remand, this suit O.S.No.1387 of
2009 came to be dismissed for default by III Assistant Judge's
Court, City Civil Court, Chennai on 26.07.2019 and we are
informed that this has attained quietus.
7. From the above, it is clear that there are three suits pertaining to
at least one survey number qua said lands, namely T.S.No.48 but writ
petitioners have not made a whisper about the suits though first writ
petitioner is plaintiff in one suit and both writ petitioners are plaintiffs in
another suit. There will be allusion about this infra elsewhere in this order.
8. Be that as it may, as regards said lands, as already alluded to
supra, photocopies of revenue records (PLR) placed before us demonstrate
that said lands have been classified as Government Poramboke and learned
State counsel submits that survey has already been done on 11.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
qua both survey numbers of said lands (T.S.Nos.46 and 48) and
encroachments have been noticed. Learned State counsel submits that
RoE proceedings are in the anvil.
9. Elsewhere infra in this order, we would be directing a joint survey
in the presence of all the private respondents and drawing up of a report
and commencement of RoE proceedings thereafter, if encroachment is
noticed qua said lands. Commencement of RoE proceedings necessarily
means alleged encroachers being show-caused and given opportunity
under appropriate / applicable statute.
10. Reverting to writ petitioners not mentioning about the three suits
in the writ affidavit, we have no hesitation in saying that such an approach
is unacceptable and deserves to be deprecated. The faint submission of
learned counsel for writ petitioners that the writ petitioners are old and
illiterate is far from convincing as the writ petitioners have been litigants
in civil suits as already alluded supra. However, as regards N.Umapathy's
case pressed into service by learned counsel for R6, the same is a case of
suppression. In the case on hand, we find it to be a omission nay a serious
omission but does not qualify as suppression, as the writ petitioners really
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
do not stand to gain by the omission. Therefore, N.Umapathy's case is
distinguishable on facts. We deem it appropriate to impose costs on the
writ petitioners for the serious omission but we are of the view that it does
not warrant dismissal of the writ petition as revenue records prima facie
show that said lands are Government poramboke lands but we hasten to
add that we are not expressing any view or opinion now.
11. We also find that none of the three suits pertain to declaration of
title. As already alluded to supra elsewhere, while two suits are for bare
injunction qua possession, another suit is for mandatory injunction qua
removal of encroachment. If even one of the suits had been for declaration
of title we might have applied N.Umapathy's case and held against the
writ petitioners on the ground of suppression.
12. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning
thus for, the following order is made:
i) A joint survey shall be conducted by R3 within a
period of eight weeks from today i.e., on or before
08.09.2025 after putting on notice private respondents and
any other person/s who may be interested/concerned;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
ii) Survey report shall be drawn up. In the survey
report, if any encroachment is found to be made either by
private respondents (R4 to R7) or by any other person,
appropriate action for RoE under appropriate / applicable
Statute, by putting on notice the parties concerned, shall be
commenced within eight weeks therefrom i.e., on or before
10.11.2025;
iii) Since R4, R5 and R7 are not before this Court, all
their rights and contentions are preserved untrammelled by
this order. All rights and contentions of R6 also stand
preserved;
iv) In the survey, if no encroachment is found, that
would be curtains on the matter and it will be open to the
writ petitioners to challenge the survey report, if so advised
and if so desired.
v) It is open to any one show-caused / put on notice as
regards RoE proceedings, to press into service judgments and
decrees in the aforementioned suits in response to being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
show-caused or in response to being given an opportunity and
the same will be considered on its own merits and in
accordance with law untrammelled by this order.
Captioned WP disposed of in the aforesaid manner. Consequently,
the connected WMP is disposed of as closed. The writ petitioners are
directed to pay of costs for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to
the Blue Cross of India, No.72, Velachery Road, Guindy, Chennai -32 on
or before 28.07.2025.
[M.S., J.] [H.C., J.]
14.07.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
To
1. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building
Chennai - 600 003
2. The Zonal Officer
Zone-X
Greater Chennai Corporation
LB Road, Adyar
Chennai - 600 020
3. The Tahsildar
Velacherry Taluk
Velacherry
Chennai - 600 042
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
M.SUNDAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
gpa
14.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 06:03:18 pm )
