Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, C.J., G.Arul Murugan, J.
R.Chandramouli, S/o.Ramaiah - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
W.P.No.15696 of 2026
Decided On : 22-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan
For the Respondent:Ms.Akila Rajendran, Government Advocate, Mr. P.Dinesh Kumar, Mr. D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel
Res judicata applies to writ petitions; Article 226 not for private property disputes where civil remedies available.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Relevant provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India govern writ jurisdiction. Petitioner alleges fraudulent documents, forged patta, and unauthorized construction by private parties, leading to notices for sealing and demolition by municipal authorities. Court finds prior writ and contempt dismissed, title suit barred by limitation, holding writ inappropriate for private property disputes. Second Paragraph: Issues framed as whether repeated writs for identical relief permissible amid prior adjudications and civil remedies. Ratio decidendi emphasizes res judicata applies to writs (citing Supreme Court precedents); civil suit proper for private property rights disputes, not extraordinary jurisdiction. Last Paragraph: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks mandamus for demolition of unauthorized construction. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. prior writ, contempt closed; title suit dismissed by limitation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. res judicata bars repeated writs for identical relief. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. writ jurisdiction inappropriate for private property disputes. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, C.J.
Heard on admission.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writs, orders or Directions and in particular a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing 2nd to 3rd respondents, Greater Chennai Corporation to de-occupy and re-seal the unauthorized building construction in Old No.4, New No.1/1-7, N.No.3, Old No.4 (Plot A & Plot B), Daley Street, Chennai 600112 as per notice issued by the 2nd respondent Corporation in Notice No. Dn.58/031-1/202022 dated and Notice No.Dn.58/031-8/202022 dated 10.08.2022 and the remainder issued by the 1st respondent dated 20.11.2022 for Plot A and B and consequently to demolish the said unauthorised building and to remove the debris, to hand over the vacant land to the petitioner and to pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
3. The case of the petitioner is that sixth respondent had created a fraudulent document with regard to the property belonging to the petitioner and obtained a forged patta and put up unauthorised construction. Based on the complaint made by the petitioner, the second respondent had issued a lock and seal and demolition notice. It is stated that respondent Nos.7 to 9, who are purchasers of the property from the sixth respondent, filed appeals and the first respondent had ordered de-sealing of the premises for a period of three months for rectification. It is further stated that despite dismissal of the appeal of the seventh respondent, till date no enforcement action has been taken and the said premises has not been re-sealed.
4. It appears that, for the very same prayer, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.21690 of 2019 and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.2.2020, closed the said writ petition by observing as under:
“5. Though several contentions have been raised in this Writ Petition, from the counter of third respondent, this Court finds that already enforcement action has been initiated and hence, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
5. Alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 17.2.2020 passed in W.P.No.21690 of 2019, the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No.2955 of 2023 and, this Court, upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties therein, vide order dated 6.2.2024, closed the contempt petition by observing as under:
“4. In the absence of specific direction to the respondents in the above order, this Court is unable to find any merits in the contempt petition filed by the petitioner for willful disobedience on the part of the respondents-authority. If the representation made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Corporation in the writ petition that they have initiated action is false, it is always open to the petitioner to seek remedy either by reviewing the order of this Court dated 17.02.2022 or by filing another writ petition insisting further course of action pursuant to the notice and a further notice dated 13.3.2019 issued by the CMDA/3rd respondent in the writ petition.”
6. It is further found from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner along with eight others filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and a declaration that certain documents executed were bad and for a consequential decree for recovery of possession. The s
