[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
V.Balamuthu vs The District Collector on 24 February, 2026
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.P.(MD) No.5087 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.P.(MD) No.5087 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4281 & 4282 of 2026
1.V.Balamuthu
2.K.Vallan ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The District Collector
Trichy District, Trichy
2.The Tahsildar
Srirangam Taluk
Srirangam, Trichy District
3.B.S.Kanagaraj ... 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
passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Mu.Mu.A1/23621/2025,
dated 09.02.2026 and quash the same.
_______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.5087 of 2026
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]
This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 09.02.2026,
passed by the first respondent, under Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act, 1905.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
order is a non-speaking order. The grounds of appeal, particularly, pendency
of the suit filed by the petitioners herein and another seeking declaration and
permanent injunction, raised by the petitioners before the first respondent
were not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a strenuous
attempt to trace the history of the litigation, wherein the revenue authorities
contended that the portion of the land in occupation of the petitioners herein
is classified as “Street” in the revenue records, whereas the petitioners herein
and other private parties claim that it is their patta land.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
3. The litigative history in respect of the property comprised in
Survey Nos.228/15 and 228/25 of South Paganur, Paganur Village,
Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District, had commenced as early as in the year 2023
when the revenue authorities took steps to remove the construction put up by
the petitioners in the area classified as “Street”. The writ petition in W.P.(MD)
No.23171 of 2024 filed by the petitioners herein and another seeking a writ of
mandamus forbearing the official respondents from taking any action of
removing the structure put up by them in Survey No.228/25 was considered
by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 26.09.2024 and the said
writ petition was disposed of with the following observation:
“It is made clear that the respondents shall
proceed strictly in accordance with law, that is, under
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment
Act, 1905. If the petitioners are visited with the notice
under Section 7 of the Act, it will be open to the
petitioners to file their objections and the authorities
will consider the objections and pass appropriate
orders.”
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
4. Thereafter, a notice dated 03.04.2025, under Section 6 of the
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was issued by the Tahsildar,
Srirangam, to the petitioners to remove the Shed and iron fence put up by
them encroaching the Street in Survey No.228/25. The said notice was
challenged by the first petitioner herein by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD)
No.10018 of 2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide
order dated 08.04.2025 by quashing the Section 6 notice, since it was issued
without issuing Section 7 notice, which is re-requisite for issuing Section 6
notice. Subsequently, when Section 7 notice was issued to the petitioners,
they submitted a representation in detail and the representation of the
petitioners was considered and disposed of by the authority concerned.
Thereafter, Section 6 notice was issued on 19.06.2025, by the Tahsildar,
Srirangam. Challenging the same, the first petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P.(MD) No.18379 of 2025 contending that the objections given by him to
Section 7 notice was not considered and arbitrarily, the Section 6 notice was
issued. The Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the said
contention, dismissed the said writ petition, vide order dated 07.07.2025, with
an observation that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner in
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
respect of the Section 6 Notice, it is open to him to prefer an appeal under
Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, before the
authority concerned. Pursuant to the said observation, the petitioners herein
and another preferred an appeal before the District Collector under Section 10
of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and in the said appeal, the
District Collector has passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2026.
Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition on the
grounds as stated in the earlier writ petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this
Court to the plaint in O.S.No.1310 of 2022, on the file of the Sub Court,
Trichy. The prayer in the said suit is for declaration that the property
described in the suit schedule bearing new survey No.228/25, measuring
0.01.95 Hectare, is absolutely owned by the plaintiffs, who are petitioners
herein and another and the consequential declaration that the suit property is
not a Street.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in an
identical matter i.e., in W.P.(MD) No.14276 of 2025, on 21.05.2025, this Court
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
passed a restraining order stating that till the disposal of the suit for
declaration, there shall not be any coercive action under the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act, 1905 and therefore, he prays for a similar order in this
writ petition.
7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we find that
this case has a chequered history. The revenue records disclose that the land
comprised in Survey No.228/25 is a Street and the encroachment made by the
petitioners herein was sought to be removed by following procedures
established under law. However, for technical reasons, the same was
interfered with by this Court and finally, a specific direction was issued to the
respondents to first issue Section 7 notice, consider the objections of the
petitioners and thereafter to proceed further with the matter. Accordingly,
Section 7 notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their
explanation and thereafter, Section 6 notice was issued. However, the Section
6 notice was again challenged by the petitioners by filing a writ petition and
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court pointing out that the
petitioners have an alternate appeal remedy by preferring an appeal to the
District Collector under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,
1905. The petitioners have exhausted the alternate appeal remedy by
preferring an appeal and now, they have received an adverse order. However,
the petitioners have reverted back and they say that no opportunity was given
to them and the impugned order passed by the District Collector is a non-
speaking order. We do not find any merit in the said submission.
9. The yet another point, which has been highly canvassed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, is that till the pendency of the suit, which
the petitioners and another have instituted, the respondents should not take
any coercive action. The said plea must be otherwise. Since the area, which
is the subject matter of the dispute, is clearly recorded as a Street, the
petitioners herein can have any right over that area only if they succeed in the
suit. Mere pendency of the suit cannot be a bar or prohibition for the
authorities concerned from recovering the Government land, which is under
the encroachment of the public. Therefore, we find that this writ petition has
to be dismissed.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
10. However, if the petitioners succeed in the suit finally and get a
declaration of ownership in respect of the land in survey No.228/25, the
official respondents herein are bound to handover the possession of the
disputed area to the petitioners herein area in terms of the decree passed in
the suit, if any.
11. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]
24.02.2026
(2/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The District Collector,
Trichy District, Trichy.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
2.The Tahsildar,
Srirangam Taluk,
Srirangam,
Trichy District.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
krk
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4281 & 4282 of 2026
24.02.2026
(2/2)
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 09:28:11 pm )
