D. Arputham vs the Commissioner

D. Arputham vs The Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 27, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1492739

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/1492739
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice S. M. Subramaniam,Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender
Decided On: Mar 27, 2026
Case Number: WP/43690/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Arputham

Respondent

The Commissioner

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated : 27.03.2026coramthe hon'ble mr justice s. m. subramaniam and the hon'ble mr.justice k. surender d.arputham w/o.s.kolangiyappa ... petitioner vs.3. s.anandhan s/o.v.sabapathy … respondentswrit petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025 to take appropriate action against the encroachment made by the 3 rd respondent within a time frame. page nos.1/4 for petitioner : mr.a.m.sheik mohammed rafiq for respondents : mr.e.c.ramesh standing counsel for r1 and r2 mr.s.n.subramani, for r3 *****order[made by s.m.subramaniam, j.,] the writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has obstructed the common pathway by putting up constructions.3. however, it is an admitted case that the common pathway fallsunder the patta lands and therefore, the government authorities will not be in a position to initiate enforcement actions under the land encroachment laws. that apart, a civil suit has been filed in o.s.no.6161 of 2024 on the file of the city civil court, chennai and hence, the petitioner has to resolve page nos.2/4 the issue only through the competent civil court.4. thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. (s.m.s.,j.) (k.s.,j.) index : yes neutral citation : yes / nospeaking order / non-speaking ordermk to page nos.3/4 s. m. subramaniam, j., and k. surender, j., mk page nos.4/4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER D.Arputham W/o.S.Kolangiyappa ... Petitioner vs.
3. S.Anandhan S/o.V.Sabapathy … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025 to take appropriate action against the encroachment made by the 3 rd respondent within a time frame. Page Nos.1/4 For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Sheik Mohammed Rafiq For Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 Mr.S.N.Subramani, for R3 *****

ORDER

[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has obstructed the common pathway by putting up constructions.

3. However, it is an admitted case that the common pathway falls

under the patta lands and therefore, the Government authorities will not be in a position to initiate enforcement actions under the Land Encroachment Laws. That apart, a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.6161 of 2024 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai and hence, the petitioner has to resolve Page Nos.2/4 the issue only through the competent Civil Court.

4. Thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No

Speaking order / Non-speaking order

mk To Page Nos.3/4 S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and K. SURENDER, J., mk Page Nos.4/4

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