WP/39967/2026 of D.Rajeshwari Vs State of Tamil nadu on 5 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The eviction notice dated 19.08.2026 issued by the 6th respondent / Executive Engineer is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings.

2. The core contention of the writ petitioner is that he is in occupation of Survey No.5, Block No.3, Alandur Village, Guindy Taluk situated at Nagireddy Garden Extension, Muneeswaran Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 032.

WP No. 39967 of 2026

The petitioner has no objection for development scheme for the benefit of homeless poor people by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board. However, it is contended that the survey number has been wrongly mentioned in the eviction notice. According to the petitioner, the land in Survey No.4 belongs to the Board, whereas he is in occupation of a portion of the land in Survey No.5. The earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner along with other persons in W.P.No.21325 of 2026 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.06.2026.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the TSLR, Survey No.4 & Survey No.5 are different. The learned Special Government Pleader as well the Standing Counsel appearing for the Board would reiterate that both Survey Nos. 4 & 5 are classified as “Government Poromboke”. The land was allotted to Urban Habitat Development Board for construction of residential buildings for allotment to homeless poor people. Therefore, eviction notice was issued to evict the encroachers. The petitioner was identified as an encroacher by the Board. The Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under the Slum Clearance Board Act, issued the notice. Thus, there is no infirmity.

4. If at all the petitioner claims any title / ownership in respect of the portion of the land, he has to establish his civil rights by producing the original documents and adducing appropriate evidence before the competent civil

WP No. 39967 of 2026

Court of law. The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot adjudicate the disputed fact related to civil rights, which is to be undertaken in a civil nature proceedings. Thus, any relief in a form of a declaration in a writ proceedings undoubtedly would cause prejudice to any of the parties regarding the rightful title / ownership. Therefore, the High Court is expected to refrain from adjudicating such issue where the persons claims title / ownership in respect of a property. Any indirect approach for adjudication of civil rights in writ proceedings are impermissible. Whenever there is a dispute arises on account of civil right, the parties have to be relegated to approach the competent civil Court of law for adjudication. This being the legal position to be followed, the relief as such sought for is not entertained. In the present case, the petitioner has already given a reply to the eviction notice. The authorities shall consider the same and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and by following all further procedures as contemplated in the Act and the rules.

5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 05-10-2026 Index: No Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KKN

WP No. 39967 of 2026

To

1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai 600 005.

4. The District Collector, Chennai District, Office of the District Collectorate, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai 600 001.

5. The Tahsildar, Guindy Taluk,

6. Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, (Kottam-V) Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

WP No. 39967 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. KKN WP No. 39967 of 2026 05-10-2026