P.Karuppaiya v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN P.Karuppaiya ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.Mohan 4.Megala ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to remove the encroachments made by the third and fourth respondents in the land in Survey No.387/1 situated at Palakkanuthu Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul 1/5

District measuring to an extent of 16.5 ares by following due process of law by considering the representation given by the petitioner dated 27.02.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Senior Counsel for Mr.M.P.Senthil Counsel for State of Tamilnadu For R3 & R4 : Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Chellapandian

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking eviction of respondents 3 and 4, who are alleged to have encroached upon an extent of 16.5 ares of land.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the property in question is Government land and that there is a proposal by the Government to construct an Anganwadi building on the said land. However, according to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 are in unauthorized occupation of the property and, therefore, the encroachment is liable to be removed.

2/5

3.The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, in respect of Survey No. 387/1, a 2C Patta was issued in his favour on 01.12.2023. It is also stated that the respondent has cultivated coconut trees in the said property. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied.

4. A perusal of the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit, particularly the 2C Patta issued in favour of the third respondent, shows that it cannot presently be contended that the respondent 3 & 4 are an encroachers. So long as the patta stands in the name of the respondents 3 & 4, it is for the Government to take appropriate action, if so advised. Further, the petitioner is stated to be residing about 25 kilometres away from the locality concerned and, therefore, lacks the necessary locus standi to maintain the present Public Interest Litigation. 5.We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 04.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am 3/5

To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

and M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.

am ORDER MADE IN DATED : 04.06.2026 5/5