Arockia Mary v. The Tahsildhar,Madurai West
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, on instructions, submitted that, while submitting a reply to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, the petitioner had clearly admitted the encroachment. It is further contended that the alleged assignment document…
Judgment
W.P(MD)No.16615 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 17.06.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANW.P(MD)No.16615 of 2026and W.M.P(MD)No.12364 of 2026 Arockia Mary ... Petitionervs. The Tahsildhar, Madurai West Taluk, Virattipathu, Madurai. ... RespondentPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the notice impugned dated 12.06.2026 issued under Section 6 of 1905 Madras III Act by the respondent herein and quash the same as illegal, against the documentary evidences. For Petitioner: Mr.M.KannanFor Respondent: Mr.M.S.Parthiban Counsel for State 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16615 of 2026ORDER(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1905”).
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a patta had been issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2008. However, without taking the said patta into consideration, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent.
Operative part
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, on instructions, submitted that, while submitting a reply to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, the petitioner had clearly admitted the encroachment. It is further contended that the alleged assignment document now relied upon by the petitioner appears to be a fabricated document and that its genuineness is itself doubtful.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16615 of 20264.Be that as it may, since the impugned order has been passed under Section 6 of the Act, 1905, it is open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the District Collector under Section 10 of the Act, 1905 and canvass all her contentions before the appellate authority. The petitioner is also at liberty to produce the patta said to have been issued in her favour in the year 2008. Upon such production, the District Collector shall verify the genuineness of the said patta and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 5. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 17.06.2026NCC: Yes / NoIndex: Yes / NoInternet: Yesps3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16615 of 2026ToThe Tahsildhar, Madurai West Taluk, Virattipathu, Madurai.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.16615 of 2026N.SATHISH KUMAR , J. andM.JOTHIRAMAN , J. psORDER MADE INW.P(MD)No.16615 of 2026DATED : 17.06.20265/5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Madras III Act; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 — s. 6.
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.