SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
L.Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dndigul. – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.T Ramasamy
For Respondents: Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

Private land cannot be used for road without acquisition proceedings and due inquiry.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner sought mandamus to prevent road laying on private survey land without acquisition. Authorities surveyed land for road purposes, prompting apprehension of encroachment. Court directed inquiry into representation and mandated acquisition if land belongs to petitioner. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether road can be laid on private land sans acquisition. Ratio: Authorities cannot utilize private land without due process; enquiry required prior to action. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing respondents to inquire and inform petitioner within twelve weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's apprehension over unauthorized road survey on private land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. mandate inquiry and acquisition before road laying on private property. (Para 4)

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is to forbear the respondents from laying any road in the survey land of the petitioner in S.No.40/2 situated at West Thottam. K.Keeranur Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.

2. Upon perusing the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it can be seen that on a particular date, the authorities entered the petitioner's land and surveyed the property for the purpose of laying a proper road. The petitioner became apprehensive. When he questioned the authorities, they informed him that all are done on the directions of the Government and the authorities and the petitioner cannot question the same. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. It can be seen that pursuant to some survey conducted, the petitioner is apprehensive that the authorities will really enter upon his land and lay a road without even any acquisition.

4. Since it is stated by the petitioner that the authorities entered into the land, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The first respondent shall take up the representation of the petitioner dated 03/03/2026 and conduct an inquiry in this regard.

(ii) Needless to mention that if the land actually belongs to the petitioner and if there is any plan for laying the road, the same cannot be done without due acquisition proceedings.

(iii)Therefore, after enquiry, the petitioner can be appropriately informed by an order in writing.

(iv) The abovesaid enquiry shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of on which the web copy of this order is uploaded in the official web-site.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top