Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G. Arul Murugan, J
G. Bakthavathchalam – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent
WP No.18446 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.Muthukumaran
For the Respondents: R.Veeramani
State authorities are duty-bound to take administrative action to remove encroachments and restore public infrastructure once an official inquiry confirms such illegal activity on public premises.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus against the respondent authorities to address the illegal removal of a public street name board by a private business entity and the unauthorized installation of a private business display on public premises. The court noted that administrative authorities had already investigated the matter and confirmed the encroachment. The main issue was whether the municipal authorities held a duty to act upon the findings regarding the unauthorized removal of public infrastructure and the encroachment by a private entity. The Court reasoned that once administrative authorities have acknowledged an encroachment as established, they are obligated to take timely action to restore public property. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the local municipal authority to remove the infringing structure and restore the street name board within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for a writ of mandamus regarding public property encroachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. administrative duty to act on confirmed reports of encroachment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court mandate for immediate restoration of public infrastructure. (Para 5) |
This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment made by the sixth respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the city municipal Corporation fixed and installed a name board, indicating the name of the street as ‘Puduvai Nagar II Street” for public view and identification. However, the sixth respondent viz., R.R.Biriyani Restaurant, situated around the street corner, removed the street name board in an illegal manner and installed a name board displaying the name of the sixth respondent.
3. Learned State counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, vide order dated 16.09.2025, has already inquired into the complaint and finding it to be true, submitted a report and has requested the Commissioner, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation, to take appropriate steps to remove the said name board erected by the sixth respondent and restore the street name board. However, the second respondent is sitting tight over the matter and not taking any decision.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the second respondent may be directed to act upon the advice of the Tahsildar and remove the sixth respondent’s name board and fix the street name board at the earliest.
5. In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to take immediate action to remove the name board put up by the sixth respondent and reinstall the street name board, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
There will be no order as to costs.
