W.P.(MD)No.20398 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY WP(MD) NO. 20398 of 2026 B.Sathish Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 2. The District Revenue Officer Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Lalgudi Tiruchirappalli District. 4. The Tahsildar Mannachanallur Taluk Tiruchirappalli District. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Senthilkumar for Mr.V. Karthikeyan For Respondent(s): Mr.I.Pinaygash, Counsel For State Of Tamil Nadu Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 4th respondent from demolishing the compound wall erected around the Plot No.20, in Survey No.206/1, Kalpalayam Village, Manachannallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, till the disposal of the petitioner's Appeal dated 06.07.2026 pending before the 2nd respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20398 of 2026 ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 4th respondent from demolishing the compound wall erected around the Plot No.20, in Survey No.206/1, Kalpalayam Village, Manachannallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, till the disposal of the petitioner's Appeal dated 06.07.2026 pending before the 2nd respondent. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the land in Plot No.20. The petitioner claims an extent of 1489 square feet. The petitioner's plot is surrounded by roads on three sides, i.e., on the south, east and west. But the petitioner claims that on the eastern side, a portion of the land has been sold to the petitioner, thereby, the road to the other end is not there as claimed by the respondents. For which the petitioner is relying on the sale deed executed by the plot developer. But the respondents on the other hand submitted that the original DTCP approval shows the same as road and not the land belonging to the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner. Infact the adjacent land owner is claiming that the road is a common pathway and he is having access to the same but the petitioner has blocked the pathway. Hence, the adjacent landowner has submitted an application to remove the wall. Based on his application, the respondents declined the claim of the petitioner and passed an order. The complaint filed by the landowner was allowed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20398 of 2026 preferred an appeal and the same is pending. Pending the appeal, the respondents acted on the order passed by the Tahsildar and trying to remove the wall. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking to keep the demolition in abeyance until the appeal is completed. Pending writ petition, the respondents submitted that the wall has been removed. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication. 3. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal shall go on. The petitioner is at liberty to adjudicate the appeal. The respondents shall consider the appeal and pass orders as per law. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal. However, if the petitioner is further aggrieved, he is at liberty to file a suit before the competent Civil Court against the plot developer to protect his rights. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek modification of the plan approval. The petitioner is directed not to erect any compound wall until the litigation is completed. Further, the adjacent landowner / land developer shall not show the disputed alleged pathway as a pathway while he is selling his plots until the adjudication is completed. The adjacent landowner shall show the dispute pathway as “dispute pathway” while he is selling the property and he may sell by indicating the land being purchased at their own risk. Any person purchasing the site with the alleged pathway, they are purchasing the property at their own risk. The rights of the parties will be settled after the completion of all the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.20398 of 2026 litigations. 4.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 21-07-2026 Note: Issue order copy on 27.07.2026. Tmg To 1. The District Collector Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 2. The District Revenue Officer Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Lalgudi Tiruchirappalli District. 4. The Tahsildar Mannachanallur Taluk Tiruchirappalli District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis