D.Dhanadapani v. The Block Development

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WP No. 29856 of 2018 & WMP.No.34858 of 2018 D.Dhanadapani ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Block Development Officer, (Regular) Sankarapuam Panchayat Union Sankarapuram, Villupuram dist.

2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat (Audit) Collectorate, Villupuram dist.

..Respondent(s) Calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in her proceedings Na.Ka.No.A2/636/17, dated 25-10-2018 and quash the same. For Petitioner :

M/s.C.Prakasam For Respondents :

Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

I heard Mr.C.Prakasam for the petitioner and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner claims to be a Secretary of the Sankarapuram Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District. The Society did not have any property on its own. The then Sankarapuram Panchayat Union constructed a new office building and vacated the old building. As the old building was vacant, the Sankarapuram Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited requested that it may be permitted to occupy the said building.

3. Considering the request made aforesaid, the respondents permitted the Cooperative Housing Society to occupy the premises. By the impugned order, the petitioner was called upon to vacate and hand over possession. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was not paying the rents from 2015-16 to 2018-19. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

4. A perusal of the papers indicates that the writ petitioner was not put in occupation of the property as a licensee or as a lessee. Sankarapuram Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Limited was a mere permissive occupant.

5. A permissive occupant does not have vested right as in the case of lessee. The minute the permission is revoked, the petitioner would have to hand over possession of the property. For the fact that

the petitioner is rendering service to the local bodies in the purchase of stationeries and building materials, will not give it a right to remain in the property of another without any valid right, title, or interest. License when revoked cannot be a subject matter of writ petition.

6. I find no reason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17-02-2026 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

To

1. The Block Development Sankarapuam Panchayat Union Sankarapuram Villupuram dist

2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat (Audit) Collectorate Villupuram dist

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

nl 17-02-2026