BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.(MD)No.34219 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.27044 of 2025 Kanniammal ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways (C & M), Palayan, Dindigul District.

4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, High Ways (C & H), Vedasanthur, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 vide Kurippanai No. 01/Aakiramippu/2024/Oo passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan (R1 to R4)

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to a notice issued under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, directing the petitioner to vacate from the property in Survey No.168, Kasakaranpatti, Palayam Post, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District ('property'/'property in question').

2.Mr.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader, who appears for respondents, draws attention to an order passed in the case of one Sangeetha on 28.10.2024 in W.P(MD)No.18960 of 2024.

3.The present petitioner along with Sangeetha and others were all found to be encroachers on the property in question, which is, in fact, a State Highway. A Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.28913 of 2024 instituted by Sangeetha came to be dismissed on 26.08.2025, the Court noting that the property belonged to the Highways Department and directing the authorities to remove the encroachments.

4.According to the petitioner, a review application has been filed by said Sangeetha, which is pending and he seeks relief based on that circumstance.

5.We are wholly disinclined to consider the prayer of the petitioner.

6.The written instructions produced today in Na.Ka.No.

2319/2023/A2 dated 05.11.2025, trace the history of the matter and the relevant portions are extracted below:

'F[pypakg; hiw tll; k;> ghisak; fpuhkk>;

Gy vz;. 168 - y; tp]j; Puzk; 2.00.00 n`fN; lu; epyk; epyclik gjpT Nkkg; hL jpll; "m gjpNtl;by; "ghij" vd fpuhkf; fzfF; fspy; tifghL nraa; gg; lL; ss; J. jkpoe; py "m" gjpNtl;by; Gyvz; 168- gugG; 2.00.00 n`fN; lu; "jupR G]j; pjp ghij" vd fpuhkff; zff; py; gjpT nraa; gg; lL; ss; J. Nkwg; b Gy vz; mUfpy; F[pypakg; hiw rhug; jpthsu; mYtyf Mtz vz; 781/2023-dg; b kDjhuu; jpU.ehfuh[; vdg; tu; ghisak; fpuhkk; Gyvz; 173/9-I fpiuak; ngwW; ss; jhfTk>; Nkwg; b Gyjj; pwF; nry;Yk; topapy; njwf; pypUeJ; tlfF; Nehff; p jpzL; ff; y-;

f&u ; khepy neLQ;rhiy (SH-74) nryf; pwJ.

khepy neLQr; hiyapy; fp.kP 45/4-y; ,lJ Gwj;jpy; cs;s Mff; pukpgg; pid mfww; neLQ;rhiyJiwfF; flL; gg; ll; ,ljj; pid mseJ; vyi; yfF; wpaPL kwW; k; Gygg; lefy; Nfhugg; l;ljpy; Nkwg; b Gyjj; py; NtYr;rhkp kfd; KUNfrd-;1 MWKfk; kidtp rqf; Pjh-2 nghdD; rr; hkp kidtp fhspakk; hs; -3 Mfpa eguf; s; Mff; pukpgG; nraJ; s;sJ njhlug; hf cjtpfN; fhll; gn; ghwpahsu;> neLQ;rhiy f(k)g NtlreJ; }u; mtuf; SfF; fbjk;

mDgg; gg; l;lJ.'

7.According to the petitioner, the classification of the property in question as a Highway is itself incorrect. For this purpose, he relies on a clarification obtained under the Right to Information Act, where the property is classified as 'muR GwkG; fy ; ghij'.

8.Mr.Maharajan would explain this to say that while the land may originally have been classified as 'Pathai', there is no dispute regarding the fact that it has been taken over by the Highways Department and is presently maintained and operated as a State Highway. There appears to be no dispute on this aspect of the matter as well. We have, in several matters, held that there is no question of tolerating encroachments on State Highways simply does not arise, as such encroachments pose a threat to public