Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 226436 (MAD)

Shanmugakrishnan. S v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

WP(MD)/15401/2022 · 2025-11-27

P T Asha

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 S.Shanmugakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply and Drainage Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Office of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 5. 3.The Commissioner, Devakottai Municipality, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent Municipality to remove the encroachment made in the T.S.No.11/2 in Survey Ward “C”, Block No.3 for an extent of 24 cents situated at _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 Devakottai Municipality, Devakottai, Sivagangai and consequently consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.06.2022 by the respondents 1 and 2. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram For R1 & R2 : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.K.R.Bharathi Kannan ORDER This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “directing 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent Municipality to remove the encroachment made in the T.S.No.11/2 in Survey Ward “C”, Block No.3 for an extent of 24 cents situated at Devakottai Municipality, Devakottai, Sivagangai and consequently consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.06.2022 by the respondents 1 and 2.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property comprised in Survey No.C/3/11-2 measuring 24 cents was purchased by one Devrayan _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 Chettiar under the Court Auction sale and the same was registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Devakottai in Document No.1945 dated 29.07.1944. Subsequently, the property was purchased by the petitioner's paternal grandmother Deivanai Aachi under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1951. The said property is vacant plot and his grandmother had put up a compound wall around the property. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the property was encroached by the respondent Municipality which had constructed an overhead water tank since the petitioner and his family members were living outside the Devakottai Municipality. Their absence has been taken advantage of. When the petitioner had come to his native village and inspected the property on 22.08.2017, he came to learn about the encroachment by the Municipality in the form of over-head tank. On the very next day, a representation was made by his brother Narayanan to the respondents to remove the encroachment and hand over the property. Subsequently, the petitioner herein also made a representation on 06.08.2019, to which there was no response. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 4. Thereafter, he made a petition dated 27.05.2019 before the Tamil Nadu Local Body Ombudsman formed under Tamil Nadu Local Body Ombudsman Act, 2014. Since the Act would not be applicable for the facts of his case, Ombudsman had passed an order rejecting the claim. The petitioner would submit that before the Ombudsman, a defence was taken that a gift settlement deed was executed by one S.M.M.Subramaniam Chettiar in respect of the above property in favour of the Municipality. The said S.M.M.Subramaniam Chettiar was the Chairman of the Municipality at that point in time. The petitioner would submit that he had nothing to do with the property in question as the same belong to his grandmother Deivanai Aachi. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition in question. 5. Heard the learned counsels on either side. 6. The Ombudsman in its order dated 30.10.2019 in Petition No. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 89/N/2019 has observed as follows: “3. Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l KiwaPL Fwpj;J NjtNfhl;il efuhl;rp MizauplKk; 05.09.2019 md;W tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;L thf;F%yk; ngwg;gl;lJ. KiwaPl;L kDjhuu; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s epyk; NjtNfhl;il efuhl;rpahy; Mf;fpukpg;G nra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;> 1973-Mk; Mz;L rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpT nra;ag;gl;l 22/ 1973 vz;zpl;l Mtzk; %yk; efuhl;rpf;F mg;Nghija kd;wj; jiytu; jpU S.M.M.Rg;gpukzpad; nrl;bahu; mtu;fshy; jhdkhf toq;fg;gl;lnjd;Wk; me;epyj;jpy; nghJg;gad;ghl;bw;fhf Nky;epiy ePu;j;Njf;fj; njhl;b fl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W tprhuizapd; NghJ efuhl;rp Mizau; njuptpj;jhu;. NkYk;> epy msit vz;fs; 11 Kjy; 20 tiu cs;s epyq;fSk; ,uz;L Mtzq;fs; %yk; jhdkhf toq;fg;gl;Ls;sd vd;Wk; njuptpj;jhu;. 1964-Mk; Mz;L Kjy; FbePu; Nrkpg;G Mjhukhf Nky;epiy ePu;j;Njf;fj;njhl;b mikf;fg;gl;L nray;gl;L tUfpwnjd;Wk; 1973-Mk; Mz;L jhdkhf gjpT _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;Wk; njuptpj;jhu;. NkYk;> efuhl;rp ngaupy; gl;lh khw;wk; nra;ag;glhky; cs;sijAk; Fwpg;gpl;lhu;.” 7. The petitioner has nowhere contended as to when the water tank had been put up on his property. Further, if the petitioner was claiming a right to the property and a third party has encroached thereupon, the remedy available to him is by filing a civil suit to declare his title to the property and for recovery of possession. The petitioner has not done so, particularly, when he had come to knowledge about the water tank having been put up in the year 2017 itself. Further, the Ombudsman has dismissed the application stating that the remedy available for the petitioner it to move the Executive Officer of the Municipality. This has also not been done by the petitioner and on the contrary, he has come forward with this writ petition in question. The Municipality claims title to the property on the basis of the gift deed. Though the petitioner would submit that the person who had executed the gift deed was totally unrelated to the property in question, he has not taken any steps to _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 declare that gift deed as null and void. 8. In these circumstances, I see no reason to issue a mandamus and consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 27.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg To 1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply and Drainage Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Office of the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 5. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 P.T.ASHA, J. gbg W.P.(MD)No.15401 of 2022 27.11.2025 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis