[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Nallachamy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 February, 2026
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.(MD) No.489 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD)No.489 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.337 of 2025
Nallachamy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Kuralagam,
Chennai-600 005.
4.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
5.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul-624 004.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.489 of 2025
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul-624 004.
7.Kabilan
8.R.Karuppasamy
9.Ragupathy
10.Sornam
11.Sivabal ... Respondents
(Respondent Nos.8 to 11 are impleaded vide Court order dated
23.06.2025 in W.M.P.(MD).No.12334 of 2025 in W.P.(MD).No.489 of
2025)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents
to take appropriate legal action against the police officer and the revenue
authorities including the seventh respondent who is illegally grabbing the
petitioner's agricultural land in Survey Nos.415/2A, 2B, 2C, 2D to an
extent of 9 acres 78 cents at Ottanchathiram Village, Dindigul District
with the support of the above police officials and the revenue authorities
based on the petitioner's representations dated 23.11.2024 and
02.12.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramasamy
For R-1 to R-3,
R-5 : Mr.K.Balasubramani,
Special Government Pleader
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.489 of 2025
For R4 and R-6 : Mr.A.Albert James,
Government Advocate
For R-7 : Mr.Shankara Narayanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Sakthi Siddharth
For R-8 to R-11 : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Suriya Narayana
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the official
respondents to take appropriate legal action against the police officials
and the revenue authorities, including the seventh respondent, who is
alleged to have illegally grabbed the petitioner’s agricultural land
comprised in Survey Nos.415/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D, to an extent of 9 acres
and 78 cents, situated at Ottanchathiram Village, Dindigul District, with
the support of the police officials and revenue authorities, based on the
petitioner’s representations dated 23.11.2024 and 02.12.2024.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner had initially filed O.S.No.101 of 2009 seeking
declaration and injunction before the District Munsif Court,
Ottanchathiram, and the same was dismissed on 20.11.2024. According
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
to the petitioner, taking advantage of the dismissal of the said suit, the
seventh respondent, with the assistance of the police officials, entered
into the subject property on 22.11.2024, allegedly took possession of the
entire property and put up stone fencing. Thereafter, the petitioner
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2024 before the Sub Court,
Ottanchathiram, which is presently pending. The petitioner has also filed
a stay petition in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in the said appeal; however, no order
of stay has been granted so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner
has produced photographs, including those showing the use of a JCB, to
substantiate the allegation of forcible interference.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent would
submit that the Civil Court, while dismissing O.S.No.101 of 2009, has
categorically held that possession was not with the petitioner. Therefore,
the question of forcibly evicting the petitioner does not arise. It is his
contention that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal and the
matter is purely civil in nature, and hence, the invocation of Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 would submit that complaints were received
from both parties and a case has already been registered. It is further
submitted that in view of the finding of the Civil Court that possession
was not with the petitioner, the question of eviction does not arise.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the main
grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 to 7 have forcibly
entered into the land and taken possession of the property. However, it is
an admitted fact that while dismissing O.S.No.101 of 2009 on
20.11.2024, the Civil Court recorded a finding that possession was not
with the petitioner. The petitioner has already preferred A.S.No.27 of
2024 challenging the said judgment and decree. Admittedly, no order of
stay has been granted in the interlocutory application filed therein. Thus,
the issue as to possession is a disputed question of fact, which is already
the subject matter of the pending appeal. Unless and until the appeal is
decided and the findings of the trial Court are reversed, the question of
initiating proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 7 would not arise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise
all available grounds before the appellate Court in A.S.No.27 of 2024. It
is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.02.2026
TSG
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Kuralagam,
Chennai-600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
4.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
5.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul-624 004.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul-624 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
TSG
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 06:43:16 pm )
