Madras High Court
WP(MD)/28647/2026 of Valli S Vs The Commissioner on 1 October 2026
WP(MD) NO. 28647 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
WP(MD) NO. 28647 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011426382026}
Case QR
WMP (MD) No. 21723 of 2026
1. Valli S
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation
Madurai
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Zone 2
(North) Madurai Corporation.
3. The Tahsildar
Madurai North Taluk
Madurai.
4. G.S.Pandiarajan
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.J.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Ashok
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Kannan, SC for R1 and R2
Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, SGP for R3
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to Impugned eviction notice in Ma2U/007694/2025 dated 29.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:32 pm )
issued by the 2nd Respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to conduct Resurvey to identify the lie and location of the Petitioners property in dispute and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
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
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble M.DHANDAPANI J.) Challenging the impugned eviction notice dated 29.09.2026 issued by the second respondent, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third respondent to conduct a resurvey to identify the lie and location of the petitioner's property in dispute.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in occupation of the land comprised in Town Survey No.214, corresponding to Old Survey No.108/1A, to an extent of 260 sq.ft. He would submit that the petitioner was sought to be evicted from the said land by the respondent/Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier filed O.S.No.246 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.06.2012.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:32 pm )
3. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that subsequently, when one S.Pandiyarajan, who is the fourth respondent in the present writ petition, filed a writ petition, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the fourth respondent. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated 19.06.2026 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 34643 of 2025, granted liberty to the official respondents to survey the property and, if any portion of the petitioner's occupation was found to be in public land, to remove the same, after following due process of law.
4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, even thereafter, the impugned order has been passed stating that the land in the occupation of the petitioner is a public pathway or Corporation property. According to the petitioner, the property is only classified as “Assessed Waste” and the petitioner has already obtained an injunction from the competent Civil Court against the Corporation. Therefore, the impugned eviction notice is wholly impermissible and is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation would submit that this Court may grant liberty to the second respondent Corporation to work out its remedy in respect of the decree obtained by the petitioner before the Civil Court, in the manner known to law.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:32 pm )
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and perused the materials available on record.
7. In view of the decree granted by the competent Civil Court in favour of the petitioner and the subsequent order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.34643 of 2025, dated 19.06.2026, the impugned eviction notice dated 29.09.2026 cannot be sustained in its present form. Accordingly, the impugned eviction notice dated 29.09.2026 issued by the second respondent is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the second respondent Corporation to work out its remedy in respect of the decree obtained by the petitioner before the competent Civil Court, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.DHANDAPANI J.) (N.DILIP KUMAR J.) 01-10-2026 PKN
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:32 pm )
To
1. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation Madurai
2. The Assistant Commissioner Zone 2 (North) Madurai Corporation.
3. The Tahsildar Madurai North Taluk Madurai.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:32 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J. and N.DILIP KUMAR, J. PKN W.P(MD)No.28647 of 2026 01.10.2026
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:32 pm )