M.Mani, Vs The Commissioner,

M.Mani, vs The Commissioner,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 22, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413769

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1413769
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice S. M. Subramaniam,Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender
Decided On: Apr 22, 2026
Case Number: WP/1613/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Mani,

Respondent

The Commissioner,

Excerpt

.....for petitioner(s): mr.k.sathish kumarfor respondent(s): mr. t. arun kumar, addl.govt.pleader for r1 to r5 mr.c.ramesh for r6order(order of the court was made by s.m.subramaniam j.) with reference to the relief sought for in the present writ petition, on instruction, the learned additional government pleader would state that the subject property is classified as government tharasu land. the people residing in that locality is using the said portion as pathway. the 6 th respondent company is also using the said land as pathway.2. however, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 6th respondent has encroached upon the pathway.3. in this regard, the revenue authorities namely, the respondents 4and 5 shall ensure that the pathway is not encroached upon by the 6 th respondent. if any encroachment is identified in government tharasu land, then the same is to be removed by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and rules. page2 of 44. with the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. no costs. (s.m.s.,j.) (k.s.,j.) index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no vsi to; ezhilagam, chepauk, chennai. p.n.patty town panchayat, page3 of 4 s.m.subramaniam j. and k.surender j. vsi page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER M.Mani, S/o.Marimuthugounder, Karuppureddiyur post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District 636402. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai P.N.Patty Town Panchayat, Salem District.
6. M/s.Nutri Flavours Private Llimited,
Rep. by ts Director K.M.Sakthivel, S.F.No.146 / 1B2, 146 /3, Potaneri Nalla Goundampatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. Head Office at No.88/2, AB Block, 1st Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600040. ..Respondent(s) Directing the respondents 2 to 4 to identify and remove the unauthorised pathway and encroachments made by the 6th respondent in S.F.Nos.145 /1, 145/2,145 /3, 145/5, 145/6 and 147 / 1 A, situated at Pudhureddiyur, P.Nalla Goundan Patti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, Page1 of 4
which are classified as Government Tharisu Land and to restore the said lands to their original classification there by preventing any further unauthorised use of Government land for industrial or private purposes, by considering the petitioners representation dated 29/09/2025 and by implementing the proceedings dated 18/11/2025 in Na.Ka.No.T3 . stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr. T. Arun Kumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.C.Ramesh for R6

Order

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) With reference to the relief sought for in the present writ petition, on instruction, the learned Additional Government Pleader would state that the subject property is classified as Government tharasu land. The people residing in that locality is using the said portion as pathway. The 6 th respondent Company is also using the said land as pathway.

2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 6th respondent has encroached upon the pathway.

3. In this regard, the Revenue authorities namely, the respondents 4

and 5 shall ensure that the pathway is not encroached upon by the 6 th respondent. If any encroachment is identified in government tharasu land, then the same is to be removed by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and rules. Page2 of 4

4. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No VSI To; Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. P.N.Patty Town Panchayat, Page3 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND K.SURENDER J. vsi Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties M.Mani, vs The Commissioner, Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice S. M. Subramaniam,Honourable Mr.Justice...