Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, V. Lakshminarayanan, JJ
Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
Writ Petition No.20625 of 2026|W.M.P.Nos.22184 & 22186 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Baskar
For the Respondents: M. Guruprasad
The High Court will generally not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioner has an available, efficacious, statutory alternative remedy, such as a revision against orders passed under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involves the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, specifically Section 10, which provides for an appellate remedy against eviction orders. Facts of the Case: The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeals by the District Collector concerning land encroachment orders. The petitioners sought the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash these orders and mandate the issuance of separate pattas.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the petitioners possess an alternative statutory remedy by way of revision against the impugned orders and declined to entertain the writ petition on its merits.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court observed that since the petitioners have a clear statutory remedy under the governing legislation at the relevant stage, the Court should not bypass established procedures to examine the merits of the underlying dispute.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners may file a revision within four weeks, and the same shall be entertained on merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance for joinder of parties in a single writ petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. requirement to exhaust alternative statutory revision remedies before seeking writ relief. (Para 2 , 3) |
(Made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)
W.M.P.No.22184 of 2026 filed seeking permission to the petitioners to file a single writ petition is ordered, subject to payment of separate Court fee.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioners’ appeals filed under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, were dismissed by the District Collector, Cuddalore District, on 09.02.2026 and 10.02.2026. The petitioners have a remedy of revision against such orders. If the petitioners file such a revision within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained on merits and as per law.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. We have not gone into the merits of the matter. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
