S.Santoshkumar v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN S.Santoshkumar S/o.A.Swaminthan (Late), No.1/79, Muvarasampettai Main Road, Muvasarasampettai, Madipakkam, Chennai- 600 091.

Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner Saint Thomas Mount Union, Chennai-600 064.

2.The Block Development Officer Saint Thomas Mount Union, Sitalapakkam, Chennai-600 064.

3.The Tahsildar Pallavaram, Chennai.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thambaram, Chennai- 600 045.

5.The President Muvarasampettai Village, Chengalpattu District.

6.The District Collector Chengalpattu District.

7.Naveen S/o.Magesvararao, Muvarasampettai Main Road, Muvasarasampettai, Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091.

Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 5th respondent to take an appropriate action based on consider the petitioner representation dated 04.11.2025 within a stipulated time framed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Murugananthan.K.

For Respondents:

Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for R1 to R6

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the private respondent is raising construction, which is completely illegal

and wall is being raised in the manner that it completely obstructs access to air and light through the window fitted in the house of the petitioner. He would submit that a complaint has been made to the first respondent, who in turn directed the fifth respondent to examine the same.

3. The fifth respondent, if he has not already initiated enquiry on the complaint, should initiate appropriate enquriy to verify the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to the alleged illegal construction made by the seventh respondent. The entire area of construction should be verified. It shall also verify whether the petitioner has made his construction in accordance with the rules and, thereafter, appropriate action should be taken.

4. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 12.02.2026 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr

To:

1.The Commissioner Saint Thomas Mount Union, Chennai-600 064.

2.The Block Development Officer Saint Thomas Mount Union, Sitalapakkam, Chennai-600 064.

3.The Tahsildar Pallavaram, Chennai.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thambaram, Chennai- 600 045.

5.The President Muvarasampettai Village, Chengalpattu District.

6.The District Collector Chengalpattu District.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr 12.02.2026