Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
G.Radhika – Appellant
Versus
1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.11099 of 2025 | W.M.P(MD)Nos.8263 & 8264 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Senthil Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Ashok, Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
The court held that alternative remedies must be pursued before judicial intervention in land-related disputes.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act regarding construction on public land, asserting it is illegal. The court considered available alternative remedies under Section 10 and, granting liberty to appeal, dismissed the writ petition without costs. The judgment emphasizes the necessity for utilizing statutory remedies before resorting to judicial intervention.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notice issued under the land encroachment act. (Para 1) |
| 2. consideration of alternative remedy under statutory provisions. (Para 2) |
| 3. dismissal of writ petition based on the availability of the alternative remedy. (Para 3) |
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Notice dated 03.04.2025 issued by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.
2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, on instructions, submitted that notices were issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act for the alleged construction of a toilet in the public land.
3. Considering that an effective alternative remedy is available under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the concerned authorities, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
