Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
Thirumalai – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
W.P.No.11305 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.S.Prathibaa
For the Respondents: Ms.Aswini Devi .K

Writ jurisdiction does not entertain petitions against eviction notices without established legal rights, reinforcing authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 - Section 128 - Challenge to notice issued for eviction - The petitioner contended not being an encroacher and sought rehabilitation or compensation - However, no legal right was established by the petitioner, and the court upheld the procedure followed under the Act. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The scope of entertaining writ petitions against show cause notices is limited to established legal rights - Dismissal of the writ petition was warranted as no such rights were demonstrated. (Paras 2-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a notice under Section 128 related to alleged encroachment and sought relief of alternative housing or compensation instead of eviction.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not substantiate any legal claim against the eviction notice, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition.

Issues: The core issue involved whether the petitioner qualifies as an encroacher under the Act and whether the writ jurisdiction can intervene in such matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not intervene in eviction processes under the Act unless a legal right is established by the petitioner, reinforcing the limited nature of writ jurisdiction in such contexts.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

O R D E R

[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., The notice issued under Section 128(1)(b) of The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999) [hereinafter “TNULB Act” for the sake of convenience and clarity] dated 19.01.2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not an encroacher but submitted his representation in response to the impugned notice dated 19.01.2026.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that procedures as contemplated under Section 128 of the TNULB Act are being scrupulously followed by affording opportunity to the encroachers.

4. In the present case, the petitioner has already submitted his representation, which is to be considered by the competent authority and thereafter a final decision is to be taken. If any encroachments are identified, the same shall be removed by following procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the TNULB Act. The authorities, after taking a final decision, shall proceed with the enforcement actions for removal of encroachment.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not established any legal right and more so, no writ against the show cause notice is entertainable, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJThirumalai – AppellantVersusThe Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – RespondentW.P.No.11305 of 2026

Writ jurisdiction does not entertain petitions against eviction notices without established legal rights, reinforcing authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
Thirumalai – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
W.P.No.11305 of 2026