V.Muthiyan vs The District Collector — WP(MD)/15196/2026
Case under Others Section othres. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMD010727652026
Filing Number
WP(MD)/44436/2026
Filing Date
04-Jun-2026
Registration No
WP(MD)/15196/2026
Registration Date
04-Jun-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
Land Acquisition ( 96 )
Sub-Category
Land Encroachment ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
08-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.V.Muthiyan
Adv. S. RAJESH KANNA,SETHU BASKARAN B-MS/8330/2022,SETHU BASKARAN B-MS/8330/2022, ,MANIKANDAPRABU M,SETHU BASKARAN B
Respondent(s)
-
1.The District Collector
-
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
-
3.. The Tahsildar
-
4.V.Ponthan,
-
5.V.Ayyavu,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish KUMAR,Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiramanView PDF
Case Summary: WP(MD) 15196/2026 The Madurai High Court dismissed V. Muthiyan's writ petition seeking removal of an 8-foot encroachment on a methodological pathway/cart track. The court held that according to the 'A' Register, Survey No. 105 alone is classified as a cart track, while the subdivisions of Survey No. 106 are classified as private property. Since the disputed area involved individual property rights, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil court through a proper civil suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Jun-2026
For Admission (Land Encroachment)
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman
-
04-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP(MD)/15196/2026
Case Summary: WP(MD) 15196/2026 The Madurai High Court dismissed V. Muthiyan's writ petition seeking removal of an 8-foot encroachment on a methodological pathway/cart track. The court held that according to the 'A' Register, Survey No. 105 alone is classified as a cart track, while the subdivisions of Survey No. 106 are classified as private property. Since the disputed area involved individual property rights, the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil court through a proper civil suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts