VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

S.Thomas Florance v. The Commissioner

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
9 March 2026
Bench
The Chief Justice, G.Arul Muruganauthor
Case no.
WP 8550/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow The Chief JusticeFollow G.Arul Murugan

Judgment

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take immediate action against the unauthorised, illegal, and unlawful construction put up by respondents 4 and 5 measuring an extent of 950 sq. ft. at Plot No.3, Western Portion in S.F. No.129, G.K. Square, Kuruchi, Coimbatore District, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 02.09.2025, 30.10.2025 and 24.11.2025.

¶2It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have put up unauthorised construction in contravention of the building plan permission and by encroaching upon the petitioner's land as well as public road. It is further submitted that, while putting up the said construction, the private respondents have damaged the pipeline connection of the petitioner. In this regard, though representations were sent to the respondent authorities on 02.09.2025, 30.10.2025 and 24.11.2025, no action has been taken till date.

¶3Whether or not the private respondents have encroached upon the land of the petitioner can be determined only based on evidence to be led by the parties. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be redressed by invoking writ jurisdiction. That apart, it is not in dispute that seeking identical relief the petitioner has already filed a civil suit before the District Munsif Court, Mudukkarai, Coimbatore. Once the petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking identical relief, he cannot initiate parallel proceedings by knocking the doors of this court seeking invocation of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶4In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to pursue the suit before the civil court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. The civil court shall decide the suit on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

09.03.2026 Index : : sasi To:

¶1The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore.

¶2The Assistant Commissioner South Zone, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore-641 018.

¶3The Assistant Town Planning Officer South Zone, Kuniyamuthur, Coimbatore-641 008. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(sasi) WP No.8550 of 2026 and WMP No.9242 of 2026

09.03.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.03.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.8550 of 2026 and WMP N o .9242 of 2026 S.Thomas Florance S/o. Selvaraj, No.42A, Holy Family House, GK. Square, Kuruchi, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore-641 024. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore. 2. The Assistant Commissioner South Zone, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore-641 018. 3. The Assistant Town Planning Officer South Zone, Kuniyamuthur, Coimbatore-641 008. 4. Brigit Albhonse W/o. Christopher Vedhanayagam, No.20, G.K. Square, Kuruchi, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore-641 024. 5. Christopher Vedhanayagam, S/o. Michael Samy, No.20, G.K. Square, Kuruchi, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore-641 024. Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate action against the unauthorised, illegal, and unlawful construction put up by respondents 4 and 5 measuring an extent of 950 sq. ft. at Plot No.3, Western Portion in S.F. No.129, G.K. Square, Kuruchi, Coimbatore District, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 02.09.2025, 30.10.2025 and 24.11.2025 in accordance with law within a time frame. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ganesh For Respondent: Mr.N.Umapathi Standing Counsel for R1 to R3

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.