BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Abdul Vagithu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Collector, Collector Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Tasildhar, Taluk Office, Palani, Dindigul District.

3.Rushvana

4.M.Nooral Hahitha @ Bhagat Singh ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to remove the third and fourth respondent from property in Patta No.5722 admeasuring 0.01.20 Hec. in Survey No.306/199 (Old Survey No.306/1B) of Gothaimangalam Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District assigned to the petitioner on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner to the first respondent on 19.05.2025 in Grievance ID No.1169507 within a stipulated time.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan

O R D E R

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to remove the third and fourth respondents from the property in Patta No.5722, admeasuring 0.01.20 Hectares, in Survey No.306/199 (Old Survey No.306/1B) of Gothaimangalam Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, assigned to the petitioner, based on the representation submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent on 19.05.2025 in Grievance ID No.1169507.

2. When this Writ Petition was filed with the above prayer, the Registry raised an objection on the ground that the prayer requires clarification and as to whether the first and second respondents have any legal duty, in view of the property being the private property of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the matter was represented. Therefore, the matter is listed under the caption “for maintainability”.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the assignment has been granted to a physically challenged person, it is the duty of the first and second respondents to ensure that possession is handed over. Therefore, even now, the first and second respondents may consider the issue and if there are any encroachers, remove them and thereafter hand over possession to the petitioner.

4. I am unable to accept the said contention, since when vacant land has been assigned to the petitioner, possession follows title. If the private respondents have encroached upon the property, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court and recover possession of the property. Alternatively, if there is an attempt to encroach, the petitioner can seek appropriate relief.

5. Under the Land Encroachment Act or any other applicable legislation, only if the land is Government interest land, the Collector or the Tahsildar enter upon the land and take possession thereof by removing the encroachers. Once the title to the land vests with the petitioner, there is no question of the Collector or the Tahsildar taking possession of the said land. In view thereof, the petitioner can only approach the civil court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner is already 71 years old and is also differently abled and may not be able to effectively pursue the litigation. Merely because there will be procedural delay, that by itself will not confer any jurisdiction.

7. However, the grievance that is expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be taken into serious consideration. As and when any civil suit is filed by the petitioner, the civil court shall ensure that on the respective dates, the written statement is filed, issues are framed and the trial is taken up and the suit is disposed of. Considering the fact that the petitioner is 71 years old and is also physically challenged, dates should be given as early as possible and the suit shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within one year from the date of institution of the suit.

8. With the above observations, upholding the obje