##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD) SR No.13984 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 26.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.(MD) SR No.13984 of 2026

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

_____________ Page No. 1 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 03:00:02 pm )

W.P.(MD) SR No.13984 of 2026

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

_____________ Page No. 2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 03:00:02 pm )

W.P.(MD) SR No.13984 of 2026

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

_____________ Page No. 3 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 03:00:02 pm )

W.P.(MD) SR No.13984 of 2026

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 en