High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.08.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELW.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025andW.M.P. Nos.36229, 36236 and 36240 of 2025J. Allen ChristopherPetitioner in WP No.32293/2025J. Ronald Moses RajPetitioner in WP No.32298/2025P.D. Singaram alias P.S. DavidPetitioner in WP No.32300/2025vs.1.The District CollectorOffice of the Collector of ChennaiRajaji SalaiGeorge TownChennai 600 0012.The SecretaryState Highways DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0093.The District Revenue OfficerChennai DistrictChennai4.The Revenue Divisional OfficerAmbattur Division/Chennai Central DivisionAnna Nagar West ExtensionChennai5.The Assistant Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1061/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20256.The Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1067.The Assistant EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1068.The TahsildarAmbattur TalukChennai 600 0539.The Assistant Settlement Officer – NorthO/o the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Survey and SettlementChepaukChennai 600 005RespondentsWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to notices dated 10.07.2025 under the provisions of “the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001” issued by the fifth respondent to the petitioners and quash the same and direct the eighth respondent to survey the entire lands comprised in Survey Nos.602/5 and 602/7 situate at Ambattur Village while referring to DTCP approval no.250/67 and old village map FMB.For writ petitionerMr. Rishi S. Ahujain all 3 WPsFor all respondents Mr. T.K. Saravananin all 3 WPsAddl. Govt. PleaderCOMMON ORDER(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)In captioned three main 'writ petitions' [hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity], three identical notices, all issued by fifth 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025respondent-Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (all dated 10.07.2025) have been assailed. To be noted, these three notices shall henceforth be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity and 'I impugned notice' qua W.P.No.32293 of 2025, 'II impugned notice' qua W.P.No.32298 of 2025 and 'III impugned notice' qua W.P.No.32300 of 2025, individually, for the sake of convenience and clarity.2.Scanned reproduction of three impugned notices, as placed before us, is as follows:3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20254/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20255/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20256/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20253.The impugned notices have not show caused the writ petitioners/noticees, though the impugned notices themselves say that they have been issued under Section 28(2)(ii) of 'the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)' [hereinafter 'said Highways Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Notwithstanding this position, writ petitioners construed the impugned notices as 'show cause notices' (SCNs) and sent separate replies dated 16.07.2025. Post presentation of captioned WPs in this Court (to be noted, captioned WPs were filed in this Court on 12.08.2025), writ petitioners have been visited with identical orders dated 08.08.2025 made by fifth respondent bearing reference Memo No.377/2025/,tm [hereinafter 'said orders' for the sake of convenience and clarity] but the said orders had not considered the writ petitioners' replies dated 16.07.2025, is learned counsel for writ petitioners' say.4.Issue notice to respondents.5.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all respondents and very fairly submits, on instructions, that a survey report has been sought from the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, the same is awaited and 'final orders' will be made thereafter, i.e., orders under proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Highways Act.7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20256.This Court finds that the scope of the captioned main WPs is very limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, captioned main WPs are taken up for hearing in the Admission Board itself.7.Though learned State counsel submits that a survey report has been sought from jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, the same is awaited and that 'final orders' within the meaning of proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Highways Act are yet to be made, we find that said orders have been made (filed as additional typed set of papers today) and the same have been served on the writ petitioners on 12.08.2025.8.Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to clarify three points and they are as follows:i.First point is, on law and that is, learned State counsel submitted that fifth respondent (Assistant Divisional Engineer) is a person authorised by 'Administrator'. To be noted, the expression 'Administrator' is defined vide Section 2(13) of 'the Tamil Nadu Highways (Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act 11 of 2024)' [hereinafter 'the Amending Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which takes us to Section 5(2) of Amending Act. This position is not disputed. Therefore, this point will not be raised in this matter.8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025ii.Second point is on facts and that is, as regards I impugned notice, it is addressed to noticee no.1 and noticee no.1 has been described as Mr.J.R.Christopher. Learned counsel on record for writ petitioner very fairly submits that the writ petitioner's name 'Mr. J. Allen Christopher' has been wrongly described but the writ petitioner has understood himself to be the noticee and sent the reply dated 16.07.2025. Therefore, it will now be an admitted position between the parties that as regards I impugned notice, there is a mis-description of noticee but the same has been set right now as both noticee and State consider I impugned notice as notice issued to writ petitioner in W.P.No.32293 of 2025, viz., Mr. Allen Christopher, son of late Mr.P.S.James.iii.Third point also is on facts and that is, though the impugned notices are not happily worded i.e., though the impugned notices do not show cause the writ petitioners/noticees, writ petitioners have construed the same as SCNs and sent separate replies dated 16.07.2025 (replies within the meaning of Section 28 of said Highways Act). Therefore, the point that the impugned notices are not SCNs within the meaning of Section 28 of said Highways Act stands doused. The same cannot be raised again. 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20259.Though obvious, we make it clear that coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be subject to and depending on orders to be made afresh by fifth respondent by considering 16.07.2025 replies of writ petitioners.10.Captioned writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid manner. In the light of what we have written regarding coercive action, captioned writ miscellaneous petitions seeking stay of impugned notices have become otiose and the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)25.08.2025 cadTo1.The District CollectorOffice of the Collector of ChennaiRajaji SalaiGeorge TownChennai 600 0012.The SecretaryState Highways DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0093.The District Revenue OfficerChennai DistrictChennai10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025M. SUNDAR, J.andR. SAKTHIVEL, J.cad4.The Revenue Divisional OfficerAmbattur Division/Chennai Central DivisionAnna Nagar West ExtensionChennai5.The Assistant Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1066.The Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1067.The Assistant EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1068.The TahsildarAmbattur TalukChennai 600 0539.The Assistant Settlement Officer – NorthO/o the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Survey and SettlementChepaukChennai 600 005Common order inW.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 202525.08.202511/11
W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.08.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDARANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELW.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025andW.M.P. Nos.36229, 36236 and 36240 of 2025J. Allen ChristopherPetitioner in WP No.32293/2025J. Ronald Moses RajPetitioner in WP No.32298/2025P.D. Singaram alias P.S. DavidPetitioner in WP No.32300/2025vs.1.The District CollectorOffice of the Collector of ChennaiRajaji SalaiGeorge TownChennai 600 0012.The SecretaryState Highways DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0093.The District Revenue OfficerChennai DistrictChennai4.The Revenue Divisional OfficerAmbattur Division/Chennai Central DivisionAnna Nagar West ExtensionChennai5.The Assistant Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1061/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20256.The Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1067.The Assistant EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1068.The TahsildarAmbattur TalukChennai 600 0539.The Assistant Settlement Officer – NorthO/o the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Survey and SettlementChepaukChennai 600 005RespondentsWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to notices dated 10.07.2025 under the provisions of “the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001” issued by the fifth respondent to the petitioners and quash the same and direct the eighth respondent to survey the entire lands comprised in Survey Nos.602/5 and 602/7 situate at Ambattur Village while referring to DTCP approval no.250/67 and old village map FMB.For writ petitionerMr. Rishi S. Ahujain all 3 WPsFor all respondents Mr. T.K. Saravananin all 3 WPsAddl. Govt. PleaderCOMMON ORDER(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)In captioned three main 'writ petitions' [hereinafter 'WPs' for the sake of brevity], three identical notices, all issued by fifth 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025respondent-Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways (all dated 10.07.2025) have been assailed. To be noted, these three notices shall henceforth be collectively referred to as 'impugned notices' for the sake of convenience and clarity and 'I impugned notice' qua W.P.No.32293 of 2025, 'II impugned notice' qua W.P.No.32298 of 2025 and 'III impugned notice' qua W.P.No.32300 of 2025, individually, for the sake of convenience and clarity.2.Scanned reproduction of three impugned notices, as placed before us, is as follows:3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20254/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20255/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20256/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20253.The impugned notices have not show caused the writ petitioners/noticees, though the impugned notices themselves say that they have been issued under Section 28(2)(ii) of 'the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)' [hereinafter 'said Highways Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Notwithstanding this position, writ petitioners construed the impugned notices as 'show cause notices' (SCNs) and sent separate replies dated 16.07.2025. Post presentation of captioned WPs in this Court (to be noted, captioned WPs were filed in this Court on 12.08.2025), writ petitioners have been visited with identical orders dated 08.08.2025 made by fifth respondent bearing reference Memo No.377/2025/,tm [hereinafter 'said orders' for the sake of convenience and clarity] but the said orders had not considered the writ petitioners' replies dated 16.07.2025, is learned counsel for writ petitioners' say.4.Issue notice to respondents.5.Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all respondents and very fairly submits, on instructions, that a survey report has been sought from the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, the same is awaited and 'final orders' will be made thereafter, i.e., orders under proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Highways Act.7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20256.This Court finds that the scope of the captioned main WPs is very limited and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, captioned main WPs are taken up for hearing in the Admission Board itself.7.Though learned State counsel submits that a survey report has been sought from jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, the same is awaited and that 'final orders' within the meaning of proviso to Section 28(2)(ii) of said Highways Act are yet to be made, we find that said orders have been made (filed as additional typed set of papers today) and the same have been served on the writ petitioners on 12.08.2025.8.Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to clarify three points and they are as follows:i.First point is, on law and that is, learned State counsel submitted that fifth respondent (Assistant Divisional Engineer) is a person authorised by 'Administrator'. To be noted, the expression 'Administrator' is defined vide Section 2(13) of 'the Tamil Nadu Highways (Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act 11 of 2024)' [hereinafter 'the Amending Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which takes us to Section 5(2) of Amending Act. This position is not disputed. Therefore, this point will not be raised in this matter.8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025ii.Second point is on facts and that is, as regards I impugned notice, it is addressed to noticee no.1 and noticee no.1 has been described as Mr.J.R.Christopher. Learned counsel on record for writ petitioner very fairly submits that the writ petitioner's name 'Mr. J. Allen Christopher' has been wrongly described but the writ petitioner has understood himself to be the noticee and sent the reply dated 16.07.2025. Therefore, it will now be an admitted position between the parties that as regards I impugned notice, there is a mis-description of noticee but the same has been set right now as both noticee and State consider I impugned notice as notice issued to writ petitioner in W.P.No.32293 of 2025, viz., Mr. Allen Christopher, son of late Mr.P.S.James.iii.Third point also is on facts and that is, though the impugned notices are not happily worded i.e., though the impugned notices do not show cause the writ petitioners/noticees, writ petitioners have construed the same as SCNs and sent separate replies dated 16.07.2025 (replies within the meaning of Section 28 of said Highways Act). Therefore, the point that the impugned notices are not SCNs within the meaning of Section 28 of said Highways Act stands doused. The same cannot be raised again. 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 20259.Though obvious, we make it clear that coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be subject to and depending on orders to be made afresh by fifth respondent by considering 16.07.2025 replies of writ petitioners.10.Captioned writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid manner. In the light of what we have written regarding coercive action, captioned writ miscellaneous petitions seeking stay of impugned notices have become otiose and the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)25.08.2025 cadTo1.The District CollectorOffice of the Collector of ChennaiRajaji SalaiGeorge TownChennai 600 0012.The SecretaryState Highways DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduFort St. GeorgeChennai 600 0093.The District Revenue OfficerChennai DistrictChennai10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 2025M. SUNDAR, J.andR. SAKTHIVEL, J.cad4.The Revenue Divisional OfficerAmbattur Division/Chennai Central DivisionAnna Nagar West ExtensionChennai5.The Assistant Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1066.The Divisional EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1067.The Assistant EngineerHighways, C & M, Greater Chennai CorporationRoads Sub Division – II, ArumbakkamChennai 600 1068.The TahsildarAmbattur TalukChennai 600 0539.The Assistant Settlement Officer – NorthO/o the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Survey and SettlementChepaukChennai 600 005Common order inW.P. Nos.32293, 32298 and 32300 of 202525.08.202511/11