Thiyagarajan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and WMP(MD) No.3254 of 2026 Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur..

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kulithalai, Karur District..

3. The Tahsildhar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District..

4. Rajamanickam, S/o. Venkatachalam, Kamatchiyamman Kovil Street, Mayanoor Village, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District..

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka. A2/1879/2023 dated 28.01.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same Page No.1 of 5

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth For Respondent(s): Mr.SRA.Ramachandran Addl. Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) Pursuant to the directions of this Court on 12.02.2026 given to the learned Additional Government Pleader to verify whether any appeal is pending before the District Collector regarding the notice issued for removal of encroachments, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner herein on 17.02.2025 gave a representation stating that it is the neighbouring land owner Manivannan, S/o.Rajamanickam, who is cause for the writ petition, is the real encroacher and if any action to be taken for removing the encroached portion put up by the petitioner, same action should be taken against Manivannan, S/o.Rajamanickam, except this there is no representation received from the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that whoever be the encroacher, whether the petitioner or the neighbour, the encroached portion will be identified and removed and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the third respondent has already identified the encroached portion and necessary action will be taken soon.

Page No.2 of 5

2. In this writ petition, we find that the petitioner is challenging the notice issued by the Tahsildar for removing the encroachment. Perusal of the said notice, we find that this notice is consequence of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD) No.10384/2024 and the follow up action taken by the respondents for removal of the encroachment. The representation of the petitioner has been duly considered and also negatived. The only concern of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that Rajamanickam S/o.Venkatachalam in WP(MD) No.10384/2024 is also an encroacher and same has been referred in the impugned order and no action has been taken against him for removal of encroachment. We make it clear that the respondents are expected to act impartially and remove all the encroachments following due process of law and there cannot be any discrimination.

3. With this observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (G.J, J.) (K.K.R.K, J.) Index : Yes / No 18.02.2026 RR Page No.3 of 5

To

1. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur..

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kulithalai, Karur District..

3. The Tahsildhar, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur District..

Page No.4 of 5

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

RR Order made in DATED : 18.02.2026 Page No.5 of 5