M.Ananda Munirajan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated:17.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN WP(MD)No.26873 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.20868 of 2025 M.Ananda Munirajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Dindigul District.

3.The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul District.

5.The Secretary, M.S.P.Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary School, Dindigul District-624 005.

6.The Secretary, M.S.P.Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary School Managing Board, Dindigul District.-624 005.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation dated 01.09.2025 and to initiate necessary action against the respondents 5 and 6 in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, r/w. Respective rules reamed therein for the illegal transfer of school property situated in T.S.No.101, Thirunagar, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District for the purpose of construction of marriage halls namely M.S.P.Auditorium and M.S.P.Annexe. For Appellants : Mr.Selva Adiya, for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajaudrai For R1,2 & 4 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Govt., Pleader For R3 : Mr.M.Arun Srivastava for Mr.J.Lawrance, Standing Counsel For R5 & R6 :Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar *****

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) The Public Interest Litigation filed on the premise that the property of the school has been grabbed by the trustees and a marriage hall has been constructed as well as mandamus sought to dispose of the representation seeking action against the fifth and sixth respondents.

2.This Court on being prima face satisfied with the submission made by the petitioner called for production of the documents pertaining to the properties held by the school and the ownership of the land on which the alleged construction is made. on 04.02.2026 we passed the following order: "Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2.This is a case putting up a construction in the open land, which has been utilized by the student of the fifth respondent school.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the construction has been put up on a distinct portion of the land owned by the Society and it has been nothing to do with the School or School property.

4.To clarify the said contention, records pertaining to the purchase of the land, declaration of assets of the School, declaration of assets of Society, planning permission for the building and other relevant documents shall be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing.

5.Post the matter on 11.02.2026."

3.Again, the matter was taken up for considering on 11.02.2026 and sought for verification. On verifying the records, we find that the Auditorium and the marriage hall constructed by the Society in their land and does not belong to the school. Hence, we passed the following order and adjourned

the matter to enable the petitioner to verify about the facts as found in the report.

"Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the records have been produced. On verification, we find that the property in T.S.No.101, measuring an extent of 4.43 acres, was purchased by Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary School Managing Board on 29.06.1972, upon which the auditorium and marriage hall have been constructed. Whereas, the school is located in T.S.No.1960/3, which is run by Nadar Uravin Murai and the property has also been purchased only by Nadar Uravin Murai.

2. There is no indication that T.S.No.101, which was purchased by Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary School Managing Board, is a part of the school property.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent states that M.S.P.Solai Nadar donated the land in T.S.No.1960/3, upon which the school has been constructed, and his name has been given to the school. Except that, the school has no control over the other properties of the Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary School Managing Board.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to verify about these facts and report. At his request, post the matter under the caption "For Orders" on 17.02.2026. 4.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for any higher and secondary

school in urban area, the Rule mandates the school along with playground should be 5 acres, therefore, the school authority, which has granted recognition, had taken into consideration the land on which the Auditorium is constructed. He further submitted that the school authorities had not produced any document to show the property held by the school. This Court is not inclined to venture into the assets and details of the property sold by the school, we are concerned whether the objectionable construction of auditorium and the marriage hall are in the land of the school, whereas the records produced clearly displayed that 4.43 acres of land purchased by Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary School Managing Board, on 29.06.1972 and it is located in Town Survey No.101 whereas the school is located inT.S.No.1960/3 which is run by Nadar Uravinmurai. The managing board Solai Nadar Memorial Higher Secondary and Nadar Uravinmurai are two different entities.

5.We also found that a larger extent of land was originally purchased by Solai Nadar and out of which, a portion was donated to establish the school in his Name. However, the school is managed and administered by a different School Managing Committee of Nadra Uravinmurai. Hence, we find that there is no material to show that the sixth respondent has used the property of the 5th respondent school. Hence, this Writ Petition stands

dismissed. No costs.

[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 17.02.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes Ns To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Dindigul District.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul District.

DR.

G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.

AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Ns WP(MD)No.26873 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.20868 of 2025 17.02.2026