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

Saisamary Alias Jayanthi v. The District Collector

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
20 May 2026
Bench
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, R. Poornima
Case no.
WP(MD) 14196/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow D.Bharatha ChakravarthyFollow R. Poornima

Judgment

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) The writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 02.02.2026 and 09.05.2026 within a specific time frame as fixed by this Court and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 8 to demolish the unauthorized construction at Town Survey Nos.1365/1 and 1365/2, West Arokiya Madha Street, Dindigul west Town, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District and to direct the 9th and 10th respondents to disconnect the electricity supply to the said unauthorized construction.

¶2This writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the averments made in the affidavit. Even as per the case of the petitioner, the land in question belongs to the petitioner and the private respondents have encroached the petitioner's land and attempting to put up construction. The petitioner has already filed a civil suit in which according to the petitioner, partly findings are made in favour of the petitioner, but however the decree is not granted and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has already filed A.S.No.51 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

¶3In view thereof, when the petitioner claims that the respondents have encroached into her property and putting up construction, she cannot have a grievance that the respondents ought to have obtained planning permission in respect of the encroached property belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, keeping open all the questions to be agitated by the petitioner in the pending appeal suit, this writ petition cannot be entertained, as the property itself is said to be belonging to the petitioner and the matter is sub-judice before the civil court. The learned counsel would state that the petitioner is elderly person and suffering on account of the pendency of litigation.

¶4In view thereof, we only request the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, to dispose of A.S.No.51 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order.

¶5The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. [D.B.C., J.] & [R.P., J.] Index : No

20.05.2026

: No bala To

¶1The District Collector,

¶2The Commissioner, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Dindigul.

¶3The District Town and Country Planning Officer (DTCP), Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶4The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning, Dindigul. Dindigul District.

¶5The Thasildhar, Dindigul West Taluk,

¶6The Executive Engineer, Planning Permission, Office of the DTCP,

¶7The Town Planning Officer, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Building Plan Permission Office,

¶8The Block Development Officer, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.

¶9The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

¶10The Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), Operation and Maintenance (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), West Division, oD.BHARATHAoCHAKRAVARTHYoo,oJo. and oR.POORNIMAoo,oJo. bala o ORDERoMADEoIN W.P(MD)No.14196oofo2026 oDATEDo:oo20.05.2026o

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20.05.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Saisamary alias Jayanthi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, 2. The Commissioner, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Dindigul. 3. The District Town and Country Planning Officer (DTCP), Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4. The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning, Dindigul. Dindigul District. 5. The Thasildhar, Dindigul West Taluk, 6. The Executive Engineer, Planning Permission, Office of the DTCP, 7. The Town Planning Officer, Dindigul City Municipal Corporation, Building Plan Permission Office, 8. The Block Development Officer, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District. 9. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), 10. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), Operation and Maintenance (O and M), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO), West Division, 11. Banumathi 12. Rajasekaran ...Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 02.02.2026 and 09.05.2026 within a specific time frame as fixed by this Court and directing the 1st to 8th Respondents to demolish the unauthorized construction at Town Survey Nos.1365/1 and 1365/2, West Arokiya Madha Street, Dindigul west Town, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District and the 9th and 10th Respondents to disconnect the electricity supply to the said unauthorized construction premises. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar For R1, R3 to R6 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For R2 & R7 : Mr.J.Lawrence

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.