[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Arun vs The Commissioner on 23 February, 2026
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P.(MD) No.4958 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.P.(MD) No.4958 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.4153 of 2026
Arun ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner
Madurai Corporation
Madurai
2.The Assistant Commissioner
Madurai Corporation
Zone 2 (North), Madurai
3.The Town Planning Authority
Madurai Corporation, Madurai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order
bearing Na.Ka.No.E/3/018671/2025, dated 12.02.2026, issued by the second
respondent and quash the same.
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.4958 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Samidurai
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinayak
Standing Counsel
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]
Mr.S.Vinayak, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the
respondents.
2. The order dated 12.02.2026, passed by the second respondent,
directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in the
Corporation Road, is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. A reading of the impugned order indicates that pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court, the land comprised in Survey No.4783, Block
No.96, Ward No.10, of Madurai Corporation, was measured by the
respondents and found that a compound wall has been constructed by the
petitioner encroaching upon the area earmarked as “Corporation Road”.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
compound wall put up by the petitioner 40 years ago and there is a valid patta
granted in favour of the petitioner, who have purchased the subject land from
the lawful owner in the year 2021 and to that effect, he has produced the
revenue records before this Court.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on
instructions, would submit that a School has been put up in the patta land.
However, the compound wall has been constructed in the area earmarked as
“Corporation Road” and for which, he relies upon the Town Survey Land
Register, wherein for the subject land to an extent of 0.019.5 Ares, the
pattadar's name is mentioned as “Ramuthayammal” and the owner of the land
is mentioned as “Commissioner, Madurai Corporation” and also relied upon
the Re-Settlement Register, wherein the name of Ramuthayammal as against
the subject survey number to an extent of 0.21.00 Ares has been recorded.
6. From a reading of the above revenue records and the impugned
order, we find that over and above the extent of the land, which the petitioner
holds, he has put up the construction and the impugned order is only
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in the
Corporation Road. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned
order, which has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court
in the earlier round of writ petition.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]
23.02.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
krk
and
23.02.2026
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 07:35:16 pm )
