Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
Sagunthala – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP No. 37362 of 2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs.T.V. Mala
For the Respondent(s):Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, Government Advocate for R1 to R3
Writ court under Art.226 cannot grant injunction against dispossession; respond to statutory eviction notice first.
Headnote:The petitioner sought restraint against forest authorities from interfering with possession of land under provisions of the Forest Act. Facts involved issuance of eviction notice for alleged encroachment, with petitioner filing writ petition instead of responding. Court found relief misconceived as injunction not grantable under Art.226. Issue framed whether writ court can grant injunction against dispossession post-eviction notice. Ratio: Powers under Art.226 do not extend to granting mandatory injunctions; petitioner must respond to statutory notice before authorities, who shall decide post-consideration. Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to submit explanation to competent authority for consideration before eviction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for injunction against interference with possession. (Para 1) |
| 2. injunction relief misconceived under art.226 post-eviction notice. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. direct response to notice; writ dismissed. (Para 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 37362 of 2025 Sagunthala W/o Moorthy, D. No 49, Bishop Down, R.K. Puram, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector Collector Office, Udhagamandalam, The Nigliris District
2. The District Forest Officer Udhagamandalam The Nilgiris Distrit
3. The Forest Range Officer South Division, Udhagamandalam The Nilgiris Distrit ..Respondent(s)
Forbearing the respondents, their men agents servants or any body claiming through them form interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property, situated at old Survey No F / 307/ A Re-survey No 658 and Town survey No. H / 13/ 34, to an extent of 0.03-1/2 Acres of land together with a building, located at R.K. Puram BishopDown, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District and from obstructing the right of way that leads form Hobart Road to the petitioners property.
For Petitioner(s): Mrs.T.V. Mala For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, Government Advocate for R1 to R3
Order
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forebear the respondents, their men, agents, servants or any body, claiming through them from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property, situated at old Survey No.F / 307/ A Re-survey No. 658 and Town survey No. H / 13/ 34, to an extent of 0.03-1/2 Acres of land together with a building, located at R.K. Puram BishopDown, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District and from obstructing the right of way that leads form Hobart Road to the petitioners property.
2. The relief as such sought for is absolutely misconceived. Such a relief in the nature of injunction cannot be granted in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Forest officials issued eviction notice by invoking the provisions of the Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
4. Instead of submitted explanation in response to the notice, the present writ petition is filed seeking an injunction not to dispossess. Thus, the present writ petition is not entertainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation along with documents, if any, to the competent authority, in response to the notice issued under the Forest Act and the authorities, on receipt of any such explanation shall consider the same and thereafter, take a final decision and proceed with the eviction process, if any encroachments are identified.
