Jayasree v. The Governmnt Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA Writ Petition No.14191 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.15948 of 2025 1.Jayasree 2.P.Veeriah 3.B.Muthulakshmi 4.Ganga Devi Raj Purohit ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Puzhal Panchayat Union, Chennai.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Thasildar, Redhills, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police, Station House Officer, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.
Page No.1 of 6
6.Gomathi ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein more particularly the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2025 and accordingly direct 1 to 5 respondents to take necessary action against the 6th respondent and retain it as road in Survey No.262/4, Puzhal Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai District. For Petitioners :
Mrs.Dhakshayani Reddy for Ms.S.Yash Rathi For Respondents 1 to 4 :
M/s.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate For Respondent 5 :
Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition to direct the respondents herein more particularly the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2025 and accordingly direct 1 to 5 respondents to take necessary action against the 6th respondent and retain the road in Survey No.262/4, Puzhal Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai District.
2. The petitioners are purchasers and owners of residential plots in Survey Nos.262 and 261/3 of Puzhal Village, Red Hills, Thiruvallur Page No.2 of 6
District. The said lands originally belonged to Tmt. Egavalli, who executed two irrevocable Power of Attorney's in favour of Mr. K.S. Thangappan and Mr. AIP Raj vide Doc.Nos. 648/1987 and 712/1987, for the purpose of subdivision and sale of plots. Based on these documents, several sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners in the year 1990. While so, Tmt.Egavalli obtained patta No.142 in respect of the lands demarcated as road in the sub-division of the plots sold to the petitioners. Subsequently, based on the said patta she executed a settlement deed in favour of unknown persons (alleged to be her grandchildren), and later Patta No.17704 was issued in their names. Further, through Sale Deed Doc. No. 17229/2022, the land classified as a road (Survey No. 262/4) was transferred to one Tmt. Gomathi, who obtained Patta No. 18594 for the same and commenced unauthorized construction, thereby obstructing access to the petitioners' plots.
2.1. Upon noticing the encroachment, the petitioners filed multiple representations to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and other authorities, and also submitted a complaint to the Land Grabbing Cell. Since no effective action was taken, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Page No.3 of 6
W.P.No.10576 of 2025, seeking cancellation of the illegal patta granted to the private respondents by considering the petitioner's appeals. In the writ petition an order of status quo was granted with respect to the maintenance of Survey Nos. 262/4 as a road. The petitioner states that as the 6th respondent put up constructions illegally without obtaining planning permit, the petitioner gave a complaint to the authorities against the illegal construction put up by the 6th respondent. The petitioner thereafter submitted the representation on 16.03.2025 to the authorities against the illegal construction. As no action was taken the petitioner filed the above writ petitioner for the aforesaid relief.
3. Though various issues were raised in the writ petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioner's submitted that it would suffice if this Court issued directions to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2025, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent did not object to the learned senior's counsel request. Page No.4 of 6
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the limited relief sought for by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2025, by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent. Consider the documents, if any, filed by both the parties and thereafter pass orders on merits an in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
26.06.2025 smn Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No Page No.5 of 6
N.MALA,J.
smn To:
1.The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Puzhal Panchayat Union, Chennai.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
4.The Thasildar, Redhills, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police, Station House Officer, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.
26.06.2025 1/2 Page No.6 of 6