(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order issued by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.M1U1/009071/2024 dated 14.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal.)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned notice issued by the third respondent herein in his proceedings in File No.Ma1Vu/009071/2024 dated 25.08.2025 and quash the same as illegal.)

Common Order

P.B. Balaji, J.

1. The Writ Petition in WP(MD).Nos.24963 and 24964 of 2025 have been filed by the owner of Plot No. 22, comprising an extent of 2631 sq. ft., situated in Melamadai, Bit-II, East Taluk, Madurai District.

2. W.P.(MD).No.24963 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, dated 14.08.2025, whereby the writ petitioner was directed to remove the alleged encroachments in S.No.8/8A.

3. WP(MD).No.24964 of 2025 has been filed by the very same petitioner, challenging the notice issued by the City Planning Officer of Madurai Corporation, dated 25.08.2025, classifying the petitioner's private property as an encroachment and issuing a notice under Sections 135 and 137 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

4. We have heard Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions; Mr. S. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the first respondent in both the Writ Petitions; and Mr. K.K. Kannan, learned counsel for the second respondent in W.P.(MD).No.24963 of 2025 and for the respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(MD).No.24964 of 2025.

5. Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the lands comprised in S.No.8/8A are patta lands and that, in fact, the revenue records have been mutated in Patta No.300 in the joint names of 70 persons. He would further contend that at no point of time was the subject property vested with the Panchayat authorities for the purpose of use as a 20 Ft., public pathway. In this regard, he would take us through Joint Patta No.300, which admittedly stands in the names of 70 different owners. He would also invite our attention to the Melamadai Village Settlement Register and the sketch to identify the lie of the property and also the large stretch of lands in S.No.8/8A, which was set apart only for the use of different plot owners in the layout. He would further state that the ownership of the said lands in S.No.8/8A continued to vest jointly with the owners and that at no point of time, it has been gifted to the Panchayat or the Municipality. It is therefore his submission that the question of treating the petitioner's property as an encroachment does not arise in the first place. He would also bring to our notice that the petitioner had applied for regularization of his plot, since the layout was unauthorized, and that, by proceedings dated 06.08.2018 on the file of the Madurai Corporation, the petitioner's plot was regularized. The extent reflected in the said regularization order is 244.51 Sq. Meters, which translates to 2631 sq. ft. It is therefore the submission of Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, that proportionate portions of the lands in S.No.8/8A were taken by the respective plot owners and have been enjoyed by them and annexed to their plots. He would also state that the petitioner had applied for building permission which had also been accorded sanction as well for the plot measuring 2631 sq. ft. He would further contend that the very initiation of the proceedings by the official respondents, treating the petitioner’s possession as an encroachment, is wholly misplaced and therefore un-sustainable. He would therefore pray for the Writ Petitions to be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would place strong reliance on the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner, which clearly shows one of the boundaries as a 20 ft. road. He would also invite our attention to the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner, which entitles him only to 150 square metres in Plot No.22, comprised in R.S.No.8/10 L1, out of a total extent of 1 acre and 42 cents. It is, therefore, the submission of the 1st respondent that the extent over and above the said 150 square metres is clearly an encroachment and that merely because the revenue authorities have regularized the plot in favour of the petitioner, without noticing the western boundary, shown even in the 1974 document under which the petitioner claims title, the same would not confer any right upon the petitioner. It is further contended that such regularization clearly amounts to suppression of material facts and that the regularization order will not come in the way of the respondents taking action against the encroachments made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the first respondent therefore prays for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

7. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, namely, the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, that the petitioner has also violated the approved layout plan granted to him and, therefore, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the officials warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased Plot No.22, which is only of an extent of 150 square metres. The land in S.No.8/8A is the subject matter of the alleged encroachment proceedings initiated by the respondents. Though it was vehemently contended that the writ petitioner has obtained a joint patta after the formation of the Inner Ring Road and mischievously included S.No.8/8A in the joint patta, we are unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that the joint patta issued in the names of 70 owners has been reflected even in the official records as early as ie., 1988 and, therefore, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the official respondents that the patta had been obtained by manipulation.

10. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner claims title under the sale deed dated 15.09.1974 and that, in the said document, the schedule clearly reflects the western boundary as a 20 ft. road, it is contended that it is not open to the petitioner to claim any right over the said 20 ft. road on the western side. Though the argument appears to be attractive at first blast, on going through the documents filed in support of the Writ Petition, we notice that the lands in S.No.8/8A had been left vacant by the owners of various plots, in whose names Joint Patta No.300 has also been issued. It is only the said private 20 ft. road that has been reflected in the 1974 sale deed. Merely because the western boundary in the 1974 sale deed shows the existence of a 20 ft. road, it does not, by any stretch of imagination, imply that the said 20 ft. road is a public road that has been handed over to the Municipality or that it is vested with the Government. There is no document produced on the side of the respondents to evidence such vesting of the said 20 ft. road. On the contrary, we have already found that S.No.8/8A is a patta land and that, in view of the formation of the Inner Ring Road providing direct access to all the plot owners, the respective plot owners have proportionately taken possession of the lands comprised in S.No. 8/8A and annexed the same to their respective plots. This justifies the excess extent in favour of the petitioner, even though the original extent mentioned in the sale deed is only 150 square metres. In fact, the competent authorities have also regularized the plot belonging to the petitioner, which includes the additional extent over and above 150 square metres. Pursuant to the said regularization, building approval has also been accorded to the petitioner. In such circumstances, we are unable to see how the said property can be categorized as an encroachment and how the petitioner can be proceeded against under the relevant provisions of the Local Bodies Act.

11. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that, notwithstanding the planning permission obtained from the Madurai Corporation, there are violations in the course of construction, the impugned orders have not been passed on that ground. It is always open to the second respondent to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law if the petitioner has violated the sanctioned plan. However, this is not a ground to sustain the unsustainable orders passed by treating a private property as an encroachment.

12. In view of the above, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.MIUI/009071/2024, dated 14.08.2025, as well as the impugned notice dated 25.08.2025 in File No.MaIVu/009071/2024 in both the Writ Petitions. The writ petitioner is entitled to succeed in the Writ Petitions.

13. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.