Madras High Court
WP(MD)/30225/2026 of Sabeena Banu Vs The Director of Municipal Ad on 26 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011500882026}
AND
WMP(MD) No. 23064 of 2026
Sabeena Banu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Director of Municipal Administration, 75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600028.
2. The Regional Director of Municipal
Administration,
No. 294, Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai,
Madurai - 625 016.
3. The Commissioner,
Melur Municipality,
Melur, Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED
MANDAMUS, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned notice issued by the 3rd Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1728/2026/A2, dated 15.09.2026 quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the 3rd respondent to extent the petitioner's lease of assign the shop situated at Sivagangai Road Near R.C. Church, Melur Town, Madurai District based
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026
on the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2026 within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s J. Lawrance
For Respondent(s):
Mr.T.Thirumurugan
Special Government Pleader
For R1 & R2
Mr.G.Suriya Ananth
Standing Counsel
For R3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard Mr.J.Lawrence, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr.T.Thirumurugan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.G.Suriya Ananth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the materials available on record.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioner was given the right to occupy the vacant municipal land vide proceedings, dated 23.03.2020 for a period of three years from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023 and subsequently, it was extended for a further period of three years vide proceedings, dated 04.09.2023 up to 31.03.2026.
3. There is no further extension in favour of the writ petitioner from 01.04.2026 and now by referring to the order dated 24.07.2026 in
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026 Rev.Aplw(MD)No.46 of 2021 in W.P(MD)No.6623 of 2021, the impugned order is passed calling upon the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent Municipality had completely misconstrued the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the said review petition and it is erroneous since it is lacking in application of mind. He would pray the Court to set aside the impugned order and remit it back to the file of the 3rd respondent Municipality for a fresh consideration.
5. Per Contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Municipality would submit that they have received a communication from the National Highways Authority informing them that for the purpose of expansion of the highways and the road area, they are in need of the premises/ land area which was earlier allotted to the writ petitioner and therefore, it is no longer feasible for the 3rd respondent Municipality to either consider the request of the writ petitioner for any further extension or to allow her to continue in occupation. In this regard, he placed before the Court the proceedings of the Municipal Council, dated 10.09.2026 in Resolution No.1044. In the light of the admitted facts, since there is no extension of the license period in favour of the writ
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026 petitioner from 01.04.2026, it is no longer permissible for the petitioner to demand the continued occupation of the said premises as a matter of right. Therefore, the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be entertained.
6. However, considering that the petitioner was in occupation of these premises for more than six years and it is her only source of livelihood, the writ petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the respondent Municipality within a period of one week from the date of uploading of a copy of this order and if any such representation is made, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed within a fortnight thereafter, on its own merits and in accordance with law. Till the same is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken against the writ petitioner.
7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gbg
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026 To
1. The Director of Municipal Administration, 75, Urban Administrative Building Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar Raja Annamalaipuram Chennai - 600028.Chennai
2. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration No. 294, Melakkal Main Road Kochadai Madurai - 625 016.
3. The Commissioner Melur Municipality Melur, Madurai District.
WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026 N.DILIP KUMAR, J. gbg WP(MD) No. 30225 of 2026 AND WMP(MD) No. 23064 of 2026 26-10-2026