Ravi Selvam v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.12648 & 12649 of 2025 Ravi Selvam .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Block Development Officer, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

3.Shahul Hameed .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the work order by the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.C6/4072/2025 dated 24.04.2025 insofar as item No.14 is concerned and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents not to initiate any ground work based on the impugned work orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For R-1 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Special Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned work order of the first respondent dated 24.04.2025 insofar as item No.14 is concerned and consequently, seeks to direct the first and second respondents not to initiate any ground work based on the impugned work orders.

2. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property in Survey No.150/2 measuring an extent of 72 cents from one Rajiv by a registered sale deed dated 14.11.2022 in Document No.3267/2022. On coming to know that there was a proposal to put up a construction on the petitioner's property, the petitioner had sent a representation to the respondents on 09.04.2025, which was acknowledged by the second respondent/Block Development Officer by a communication dated 16.04.2025 bearing e.f.vz;.M1/117/2024. However, it is submitted that contrary to the reply in the aforesaid communication dated 16.04.2025 that there is no proposal for laying of road over the land in Survey

No.150/2, the respondents have now issued a work order on 24.04.2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by Serial No.14 of the impugned order.

3. It is noticed that the petitioner has already approached the Sub Court, Aruppukottai in O.S.No.123 of 2025 for an injunction.

4. The learned counsel for the official respondents would submit that pursuant to the impugned work order dated 24.04.2025, work has been completed. It is further submitted that the road has already been in existence for over a period of 25 years and it was only re-laid recently and the work is also completed now. It is further submitted that the petitioner has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub Court in O.S.No.123 of 2025 and therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for any relief at this stage.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the official respondents, I am of the view that there is no scope for granting any relief to the petitioner at this stage, as admittedly, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in O.S.No.123 of 2025 before the Sub Court, Aruppukottai. In fact, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguments are completed in the interim

application and orders are expected to be passed tomorrow. That apart, there are indications that the road work has been completed pursuant to the impugned work order. Therefore, on this ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law in O.S.No.123 of 2025 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai.

6. With the above liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

20.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Block Development Officer, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

C.SARAVANAN,J.

Lm 20.06.2025