WP/37172/2026 of RUBY SELINA Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 22 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Notice of the seventh respondent dated 01.09.2026 and consequently, direct the respondents to determine and settle the compensation amount payable to the petitioner for her Gramanatham patta land and building measuring an extent of 760 Sq.ft. of land, situated at Pilliyar Koil Street, No.136, Nandiambakkam Village, Minjur panchayat Union, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

2. The petitioner, Mrs.Ruby Selina, claims ownership and possession of 760 sq. ft. of Gramanatham Patta land with a building at Nandiambakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District. According to her, the property originally belonged to Elumalai from whom her mother D. Susila purchased it. Her mother later settled the property in favour of the petitioner’s brother Rajadurai under a registered Settlement Deed dated 25.11.2002. Rajadurai subsequently died unmarried and intestate on 20.11.2020 and the petitioner claims that she thereafter became the absolute owner and continued in possession. The dispute arose when the authorities treated the property as a Government land and an encroachment. An eviction notice dated 25.06.2026 was issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Later, a notice dated 17.07.2026 was issued under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act proposing removal of the alleged encroachment. The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in W.P. No.26269 of 2026 and subsequently in W.P. No.33047 of 2026. According to the affidavit, the authorities thereafter prepared a valuation only in respect of the building/structure, without assigning value to the land. A further notice dated 01.09.2026 fixed demolition of the building on 09.09.2026. The present grievance is therefore that the authorities are acquiring the petitioner’s land and demolishing the building without paying compensation for both the land and the structure.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the property is Gramanatham Patta land and not a Government land and therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as an encroacher. He would further submit that the petitioner traces her claim through the original owner, Elumalai, thereafter through her mother, Susila, and her brother, Rajadurai, under the registered Settlement Deed dated 25.11.2002, and that after the death of Rajadurai, she succeeded to the property and continued in possession. It is further submitted that the respondents are proceeding to take possession of the property and demolish the building for the road/railway bridge project without following due acquisition proceedings and without determining compensation for the land. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have valued or proposed compensation only for the building and no compensation has been fixed for the land. The petitioner is ready and willing to surrender the land and building for the public purpose, provided lawful and adequate compensation is paid for both the land and the structure. Hence, appropriate orders are sought from this Court.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents appear to have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is in occupation of Government/Highways land as an encroacher and therefore, notices were issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and the Tamil Nadu Highways Act for removal of the alleged demolition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had acquired the land and demolished the building without paying compensation for both the land and the building and that compensation was proposed only for the structure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in the form in which it has been sought, is not maintainable. However, in the interest of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to convert the present Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus into one seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to determine and pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for both the land and the building, in accordance with law.

8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR To

1. The District Collector Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District- 602 001.

2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition- 2) High Ways Department Unit- II, Poonamalli, Tiruvallur District- 056.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Ponneri Revenue Divisional Office, Ponneri,Tiruvallur District- 601 204.

4. The Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk Office, Ponneri,Tiruvallur District- 601 204.

5. The Divisional Engineer Higher Ways Department, Planning, Division -1, Chennai-044.

6. The Divisional Engineer (Construction and Maintenance),

Higher Ways Department, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.

7. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Construction and Maintenance), Higher Ways Department, Ponneri Sub-division, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

8. The Revenue Inspector Minjur Firka, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR WP No. 37172 of 2026 22-09-2026