Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. On perusal of the records, we find that only after causing notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and receiving explanation submitted by him, the authorities concerned have proceeded to remove the encroachment, since the petitioner has no valid…
- Para 44. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 26.02.2026NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet: Yes / No krkTo:The Revenue Tahsildar, Tenkasi Taluk, Tenkasi District.____________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.ANDK.K.RAMAKRISHNAN…
Judgment
W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 26.02.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNANW.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026andW.M.P.(MD) No.4485 of 2026A.Jeyakumar ... Petitioner-vs-The Revenue TahsildarTenkasi TalukTenkasi District... RespondentPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in connection with the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent in TKSTLK/2162/2025-B2 dated 19.02.2026 in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequential eviction notices issued by him in TKSTLK/2162/2025-B2 dated 20.02.2026 and quash the all as ultravires.____________Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026 For Petitioner: Mr.K.GurunathanFor Respondent: Mr.S.R.A.RamachandranAdditional Government PleaderO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]The eviction order passed by the respondent directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in the subject land is under challenge in this writ petition.
According to the petitioner, the impugned eviction order passed by the respondent is a non-speaking order and therefore, it has to be interfered with.
On perusal of the records, we find that only after causing notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and receiving explanation submitted by him, the authorities concerned have proceeded to remove the encroachment, since the petitioner has no valid title for the portion of the land encroached by him. If at all the petitioner is ____________Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026aggrieved, he has to exercise the right conferred under the Act by preferring an appeal under Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. Instead of exhausting the relief available under the statute, this writ petition has been filed. We are of the firm view that writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the alternative appeal remedy available to the petitioner.
Operative part
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 26.02.2026NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet: Yes / No krkTo:The Revenue Tahsildar, Tenkasi Taluk, Tenkasi District.____________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.ANDK.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.krkW.P.(MD) No.5365 of 2026andW.M.P.(MD) No.4485 of 202626.02.2026____________Page 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 — s. 7; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act — s. 10A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.