W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 Mr.V.Sekar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Madurai District. 2. The State represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Madurai. 3. The Tahsildar, West Zone, Virattipathu Madurai. 4. The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Union Office, Thirupparankundram, Thirunagar, Madurai - 625 006. 5. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District. 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 6. Muthu Pandi, The Panchayat Clerk, Karadipatti Village, Madurai. 7. Chinnasamy 8. Valarmathi 9. Priya 10. Vivek Raj ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to forthwith restore the fencing in the subject property situated at Kalvi Nagar, Rajampadi, Nagamalai Pudukottai, Madurai and further directing the 5th respondent to conduct enquiry or take appropriate action against the respondents No.6 to 10 by considering the petitioners representation dated 26.02.2026 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.. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Kathiresan For R1, R3 & R4 :Mr.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Standing Counsel For R2 and R5 :Mr.I.Murugesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1, 3 and 4 to forthwith restore the fencing in the subject property situated at Kalvi Nagar, Kalvi Nagar, Rajampadi, Nagamalai Pudukottai, Madurai. 2. Heard Mr.K.Kathiresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, M/s.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar, learned Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.I.Murugesan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 2 and 5. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's house is situated at the dead end of the road and that, originally, a fence existed at the location. Owing to the presence of the fence, the petitioner was able to park his car comfortably on the side of the road. It is alleged that, with an ulterior motive, the private respondents have removed the fence. According to the petitioner, the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 removal of the fence affects the demarcation between Kalvi Nagar and Podhigai Nagar, which are two distinct layouts and that the fence had been in existence for the past fifteen years. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 3, and 4 would submit that the fence was removed only by the Panchayat and that the pathway is required to be used by the public. It is further submitted that a new Public Distribution System shop has been constructed in the area and, therefore, free ingress and egress have become necessary. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. There is no question of maintaining any territorial distinction between the two layouts. A road ending in one layout and commencing in another is available for use by persons residing in both areas. Unless a particular area has been approved and designated as a gated community at the time of grant of approval itself, where the roads are not vested 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 with the public authorities but are maintained privately by the residents, with arrangements for electricity, water supply, and other civic amenities being made by them independently, a request to erect or continue a fence separating the two areas cannot be accepted. 7. The plea made by the petitioner to continue the fencing is only illegal and cannot be acceded to. The same as rightly been removed by the panchayat. 8. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 11.06.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Citation: No rgm 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. rgm To 1. The District Collector, Madurai District. 2. The State represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Madurai. 3. The Tahsildar, West Zone, Virattipathu Madurai. 4. The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Union Office, Thirupparankundram, Thirunagar, Madurai - 625 006. 5. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District. W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 11.06.2026 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.15625 of 2026 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis