N.Mohammed Ansari v. The District Collector

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

(1) Mr.K.Surendar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

(2) Notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with, since no adverse order is passed against the 4th respondent.

(3) The learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is ill-conceived, seeking a mandamus to direct the 1st respondent, namely, the District Collector, to dispose of the appeal challenging the proceedings daetd 13.03.2026, initiated by the Block Development Officer, Tirukazhukundram. According to the learned Government Advocate, the proceedings of the Block Development Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, dated 13.03.2026, is a summon issued to the petitioner and the other parties concerned to participate in the enquiry initiated pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 10.06.2025 made in WP.No.16650/2025, to find out whether any encroachment as alleged in the aforesaid writ Page3 of 5 petition, was made. The aforesaid writ petition is filed by the present writ petitioner. While so, challenging the summons issued to participate in the enquiry proceedings, the writ petitioner has preferred an appeal on

13.04.2026, before the District Collector and the present writ petition is filed for a mandamus seeking disposal of the said appeal. Hence, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as premature and baseless.

(4) The learned Government Advocate further submitted that pursuant to the summons, dated 13.03.2026, the Block Development Officer has conducted the enquiry in which the petitioner also participated and thereafter, the Block Development Officer, has concluded the enquiry and vide his Report dated 18.03.2026, held that the subject land is not Government land, and not unauthorisedly encroached by the 4th respondent herein.

(5) Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner, if at all aggrieved, ought to have challenged the order of the Block Development Officer dated

18.03.2026 and the present appeal which is not sought to be disposed of, is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition seeking mandamus, is also not maintainable. Page4 of 5

(6) In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. (G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 06-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AP To

¶1The District Collector Chengalpet District, Chengalpet

¶2The Block Development Officer Thirukazhukudram Panchayat Union, Chengalpet District

¶3The Executive Authority /President Vadakadambadi Village Panchayat, Thirukazhukudram Taluk, Chengalpet District

¶4Jayalakshmi W/O. Sekar, Perumaleri Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Chengalpet District WPoNo.o25651oofo2026 DR.G.JAYACHANDRANoJ. AND N.MALAoJ. AP WPoNo.o25651oofo2026 06-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA N.Mohammed Ansari S/O.Nazeerkhan, No.18/3B, Sri vari Apartment, Abdul Razack Mainstreet, Saidapet Chennai-600 015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Chengalpet District, Chengalpet 2. The Block Development Officer Thirukazhukudram Panchayat Union, Chengalpet District 3. The Executive Authority /President Vadakadambadi Village Panchayat, Thirukazhukudram Taluk, Chengalpet District 4. Jayalakshmi W/O. Sekar, Perumaleri Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Chengalpet District ..Respondent(s) directing the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioners appeals/Representation dated 13.04.2026 submitted against the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Rc. NO.0874/2025/A6 dated 13.03.2026 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the concerned parties and pass Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): M/S. T.V.G.Kartheeban R.M. Gokulakrishnan M. Jayanthi D. Deepika For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surendar, GA for RR1 to 3