Madras High Court
WP/45254/2026 of R.SHANTHA Vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 11 November 2026
WP No. 45254 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WP No. 45254 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012528012026}
R.Shantha
W/o. S. Vetrivel,
No.34, Panjali Nagar,
Annathanpatti,
Salem -636 002
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. District Collector
Dharmapuri District.
2. Revenue Divisional officer
Dharmapuri District.
3. Tahsildar
Dharmapuri Tahsildar Office,
Dharmapuri District.
4. D.K. Gopal,
S/o. Late. Kandasamy Gounder,
residing at No.92, Salai Vinayagar Street, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri.
5. D.K. Murugesan,
S/o. Late. Kandasamy Gounder,
residing at No.92, Salai Vinayagar Street, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 45254 of 2026
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 2 and 3 respondent to pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 10.04.2026 and 16.09.2026 with a stipulated period as fixed by this Honble Court and direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to remove encroachments on the petitioners property at survey number 401/3B
to an extent of 7 cents at Virupatchipuram Village, Dharmapuri district and issue fresh patta to an extent of 45 cents.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent(s):
Ms.R.K.Varshini Ga For R 1-3
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 S.M.Subramaniam J.)
This writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to pass orders on the petitioner's representation.
2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, based on the written instructions given by the Tahsildar vide letter dated 11.11.2026 would submit that, the authorities conducted inspection and found that an extent of land in Survey No.401/3B is 38 cents. On verification, the authorities found that there is no encroachment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the extent of land in Survey No.401/3B is 45 cents.
WP No. 45254 of 2026
3. Such disputed issues regarding extent of land cannot be decided by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. If at all the petitioner possesses any documents, he has to submit the same before the authorities to establish that the extent of the land in Survey No.401/3B is 45 cents. As far as the survey conducted by the authorities, then formed an opinion that the extent of the land is 38 cents and there is no encroachment in the said survey number. That being so, the petitioner has not established any cause for entertaining the writ petition for removal of encroachment. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST To
1. District Collector Dharmapuri District.
2. Revenue Divisional officer Dharmapuri District.
3. Tahsildar Dharmapuri Tahsildar Office, Dharmapuri District.
WP No. 45254 of 2026 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. KST WP No. 45254 of 2026 11-11-2026