Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
D.Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
W.P.No.11941 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mrs.Aswini Devi .K

The court concluded that a writ against an eviction notice is not viable without the establishment of a legal right, emphasizing due process under the TNULB Act.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 - Section 128(1)(b) - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenged by petitioner regarding eviction notice - Court emphasized due process under TNULB Act must be followed for encroachment removal - Petitioner failed to assert a legal right. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court asserted that a writ against a show cause notice is not entertainable if no legal right is established - Due procedural adherence is essential for enforcement actions. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contends they are not an encroacher and submitted a representation regarding the eviction notice issued under the TNULB Act. Respondents maintain procedures for encroachment removal are being followed.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not establish any legal rights pertaining to the eviction notice; therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues: The key issues included the validity of the notice under TNULB Act and the legal standing of the petitioner against the eviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without establishing legal rights, the writ cannot be entertained against the notice for encroachment removal. Procedural requirements of the TNULB Act must be adhered to by the authorities prior to any eviction action.

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) 25555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASS. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJD.Manoharan – AppellantVersusThe Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – RespondentW.P.No.11941 of 2026

The court concluded that a writ against an eviction notice is not viable without the establishment of a legal right, emphasizing due process under the TNULB Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
D.Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
W.P.No.11941 of 2026