WP CRL.(MD)/5887/2026 of V.Rajkumar Vs The District Collector/Distr on 29 October 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 06.07.2024, whereby the 2nd respondent/Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed the 3rd respondent to remove the temporary structure stated to have been erected in the disputed property.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on a carpentry business in Survey No. 49/7 in Valaiyankulam village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. He would submit that the land adjoining the petitioner's property is a private

patta land and that the petitioner has extended his carpentry unit into the adjoining land with the permission of the private land owners.

3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the 5th respondent, a retired Sub Collector residing in Sivagangai District, laid claim to the existence of a common pathway in Survey No. 50/4B1A of the said village. The said claim was disputed by the petitioner and the other land owners. The 5th respondent, by virtue of his former official position, influenced the official respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioner, alleging that he had illegally laid a pathway.

4. In the above circumstances, the 4th respondent/The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station registered a formal FIR in Crime No. 94 of 2023 and based on which the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The 2nd respondent thereafter passed the impugned order dated 06.07.2024, directing the 3rd respondent to remove the temporary structure allegedly put up in an extent of six cents of land.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the 3rd respondent/The Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram, upon inspecting the property, found that the disputed land was not a pathway and that a joint

patta had been issued in respect of the property in favour of 11 persons. The 3rd respondent accordingly submitted a report to the 2nd respondent stating that no encroachment had been made in Survey No. 50/4B1A as alleged in the impugned order and, consequently, dropped further proceedings.

6. In the meantime, the 5th respondent filed W.P(MD) No. 16578 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Division Bench, seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to implement the impugned order dated 06.07.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private nature of the disputed property and the report of the revenue authorities were brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. The authorities were directed to submit a report, and a report was subsequently submitted on behalf of the official respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, while disposing of the said writ petition on 01.10.2026, the Hon'ble Division Bench proceeded on the footing that the impugned order dated 06.07.2024 had not been challenged and, therefore, continued to remain operative. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent direction failed to give due consideration to the report indicating that the disputed

land was a private patta land and that no encroachment upon Government land had been established.

8. He would further submit that the order copy in W.P(MD) No. 16578 of 2025 was not available to him when the present Writ Petition was instituted and that, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench, he has approached this Court challenging the original proceedings dated 06.07.2024.

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the official respondents are bound to take necessary action in pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P(MD) No. 16578 of 2025. Further, he would submit that Section 145 Cr.P.C., as applicable to the proceedings initiated in 2023, empowers an Executive Magistrate to intervene in a dispute concerning land, water or boundaries likely to cause a breach of the peace. Hence prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

the 4th respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

11. In the present case, the petitioner disputes the 5th respondent's claim that a common pathway exists in Survey No. 50/4B1A. This Court is conscious that the 5th respondent had earlier approached the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P(MD) No. 16578 of 2025, seeking implementation of the order dated 06.07.2024, and that the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 01.10.2026. The petitioner contends that the report of the revenue authorities and the private character of the disputed land were not duly considered. In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish between a challenge to the original order dated 06.07.2024 and a challenge to the subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. This Court cannot sit in appeal over, review or modify the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the earlier Writ Petition. Since the Hon'ble Division Bench expressly directed implementation of the very order now under challenge, this Court cannot pass an order that effectively nullifies the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the findings or directions contained in that decision, the appropriate remedy must be pursued before the competent forum in accordance with law.

12. The petitioner may have to seek review or other appropriate relief before the competent Bench. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to approach the competent Bench for appropriate remedy.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 29-10-2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mar/skn To

1. The District Collector/District Monetary Committee, Madurai District.

2. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Madurai District.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J. mar/skn WP Crl.(MD) No. 5887 of 2026 AND WMP CRL.(MD) No. 1301 of 2026 29-10-2026