Athiyaman v. The District Collector

ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

24.12.2025 passed by the second respondent directing removal of 'Seemakaruvela trees' in the petitioner's property, based on an inspection report submitted by the third respondent.

¶2Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶3Earlier, by order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.26910 of 2025, this Court had directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner therein/A.Sithirangi seeking for removal of 'Seemakaruvela trees' from the property of the petitioner herein within a period of six weeks.

¶4The petitioner in this writ petition was the sixth respondent in W.P.No.26910 of 2025. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 23.07.2025 in W.P.No.26910 of 2025, the second respondent in this writ petition based on the inspection report submitted by the third respondent passed the impugned order directing removal of 'Seemakaruvela Page3 of 4 trees' from the property of the petitioner herein. The petitioner contends that without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the second respondent has passed the impugned order.

¶5Instead of challenging the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.26910 of 2025, where the petitioner herein was arrayed as the sixth respondent, by filing a writ appeal, the petitioner herein has once again filed a writ petition before this Court on the ground that earlier the petitioner herein was not afforded any opportunity to raise the objections in the earlier writ petition filed by one A.Sithirangi in W.P.No.26910 of 2025. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.26910 of 2025, the petitioner ought to have challenged the said order by filing a writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Without filing a writ appeal, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, which has been passed only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.26910 of 2025, dated 23.07.2025.

¶6For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a writ appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.26910 of 2025, dated

23.07.2025, if he so desires. No Costs. W.M.P.No.11011 of 2026 is ordered. W.M.P.No.11014 of 2026 is closed. 27-03-2026 RKM Page4 of 4

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. RKM To

¶1The District Collector Office of Collector Ariyalur Ariyalur District

¶2The Revenue Divisional officer Office of the Revenue Udayarpalayam Ariyalur District

¶3Tahsildar Office of Tahsildar Udayarpalayam Taluk Ariyalur District

¶4The block Development officer T.Palur Udayarpalyaam Taluk Ariyalur District 27-03-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Athiyaman ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Ariyalur District. 2. The Revenue Divisional officer Udayarpalayam Ariyalur District. 3. Tahsildar Udayarpalayam Taluk Ariyalur District. 4. The Block Development officer T.Palur Udayarpalyaam Taluk Ariyalur District 5. S.Komagan (Mani) 6. Sithirangi ..Respondent(s) Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent vide in its proceedings Na.Ka.A1/3893 and quash the same as illegal, consequently forbear the respondents their men or agents from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in S.No.310/28 T.Palur village. Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Senthil Vadivu For Respondent(s): Mrs. C. Meera Arumugam, AGP (R1 to R3) Mr.Murali for R4