V.Kumar v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP No.16839 of 2026 V.Kumar S/o Vadivel Old No 353, New No 39, 11th Street, Sharma Nagar, Chennai 600 039 ..Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector Collectorate, Chenani District, Chennai-600 001.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer North Chennai Division North Chennai, Chennai-600 046

3. The Sub Registrar Puraisaiwakkam Sub Registrar office, Puraisaiwakkam, Chennai- 600 012

4. V.Loganayagi W/o Vadivel, No.353/39, 11th street,

Sharma Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to order in Se. Mu. Na.Ka 451/ A1/ 2025 dated 19.11.2025 in Na.Ka. no A7/ 1153/ 2022 dated 15.12.2022 and to quash the same. For Petitioner:

Mr.V.Vargees Amal Raja For Respondents:

Mr.P.Siddarth for R1 to R3 Government Counsel

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and seeking to quash the same. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, who is the petitioner's mother, executed a settlement deed dated 09.06.2016, in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the 4th respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Maintenance and Welfare Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, on 06.04.2022, seeking cancellation of the said settlement deed. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent passed an order

on 15.12.2022. The said order was passed in favour of the 4th respondent without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. By order dated 19.11.2025, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to the 4th respondent and to bear her medical expenses. The petitioner claims to have scrupulously complied with the said order. However, thereafter, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint with the law enforcement authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that the law enforcement authorities insisted that he vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both the authorities namely, the respondents 1 & 2 failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner's mother had sufficient means to maintain herself. Despite the same, they directed the petitioner to pay a sum of for Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance, which is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders. 4.

2nd respondent seeking cancellation of settlement deed. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 15.12.2022 cancelling the settlement deed dated 09.06.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P No.9642 of 2023 before this Court. By order passed therein, this Court set aside the order dated 15.12.2022 of the 2nd respondent insofar as it related to the cancellation of the settlement deed. However, this Court directed to petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the 4th respondent. Subsequently, the 4th respondent made a complaint before the 1st respondent, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 19.11.2025, directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.

10,000/- and further directing the law enforcement authorities to take appropriate action in the event of default in payment by the petitioner. It is alleged that taking advantage of the order passed by the 1st respondent, the law enforcement authorities have been frequently interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed with the above said prayer.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent did not issue issue any direction to the law enforcement authorities to evict the petitioner from the premises. He would further submit that the petitioner has been regularly paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards

maintenance, as directed by this Court as well as by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this Court may issue a direction to the law enforcement authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that the 1st respondent had passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the 4th respondent. However, the petitioner had not been regularly paying the said amount. Consequently, the 4th respondent approached the law enforcement authorities. It is further submitted that, before the law enforcement authorities, the petitioner agreed to identify an alternative residence and submitted an undertaking to that effect before the authorities. However, at no point of time, did the law enforcement authorities direct the eviction of the petitioner from the premises. The learned Government Counsel further submitted that, so long as the petitioner complies with the orders passed by the 1st respondent as well as by this Court, the police would not interfere in the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent, by order dated 19.11.2025, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the 4th respondent. It is also evident from the records that the said order does not contain any direction to the law enforcement authorities to evict the petitioner from the property. The specific stand of the official respondents is that the police have neither evicted nor attempted to evict the petitioner from the premises and that they would not interfere with the civil dispute between the parties, provided the petitioner complies with the orders passed by the competent authorities.

In the absence of any material to establish that the law enforcement authorities have acted beyond the scope of the order passed by the 1st respondent or have illegally interfered with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property, this Court finds no ground to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Uma To

1. The District Collector Collectorate, Chenani District, Chennai

2. The Revenue Divisional officer North chennai Division North Chennai, Chennai 600 046

3. The Sub Registrar Puraisaiwakkam sub Registrar office, Puraisaiwakkam, Chennai 600 012

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Uma WP No. 15629 of 2026 and WMP No.16839 of 2026 01-06-2026