T.Isaivanan v. The District Collector

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 03.06.2026, alleging that the petitioner has put up a dwelling unit and been living therein for several years and, therefore, he should not be evicted and, if at all evicted, some other alternative site must be assigned to him.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when similarly placed persons were occupying the Government land and given patta, the petitioner was deprived of the peaceful living in the place, by passing the impugned notice.

¶3This Court, on considering the pleadings and the representation made by the counsel and also on examination of the typed set of papers, opined that based on the request of the petitioner, who has been in occupation of the said land for more than 40 years and armoured with the recommendation of the Tahsildar for grant of patta, even though a portion of the land in occupation of the petitioner is classified as 'Corporation Street' and patta cannot be granted, if there is any other land available, the possibility of granting patta to the Page3 of 5 petitioner in an ordinary site may be considered, and directed the learned counsel for the respondents to explore the possibility of implementing the recommendation of the Tahsildar, dated 28.09.1994.

¶4Accordingly, the Government Advocate, after receiving instructions from the authorities, submits that for the portion of the land which the petitioner is occupying, patta cannot be issued, the same being a Corporation street. He, however, would submit that, in future, if there is any alternative site (Sarkar Poramboke) for grant of patta, the recommendation of the Tahsildar for grant of patta to the petitioner will be considered, provided the petitioner makes a fresh application for grant of patta.

¶5Recording the above submissions and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has been residing in the place for forty years and also that Tahsildar has recommended for grant of patta to the petitioner as early as 1994, we dispose of the Writ Petition, directing second respondent - Greater Chennai Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of patta at an alternative site and make appropriate recommendation to the Government for allotment of a house site under any of the welfare schemes. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.30356 of 2026 is closed. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 13-08-2026 Page4 of 5 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order DIXIT To

¶1The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.

¶2The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶3The Revenue Divisional officer, RDO office, Puzhal Taluk, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066

¶4The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Puzhal Chennai-600 066 WPoNo.o27686oofo2026 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,oJ. AND E.MANOHARAN,oJ. DIXIT WPoNo.o27686oofo2026 13-08-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN T.Isaivanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Puzhal Taluk, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066. 4. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 ..Respondent(s) To call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent relating to the order issued in Na.Ka. No.A6/0521/2025 dated 3.6.2026 and quash the same and direct the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the dwelling house of the petitioner. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): R.Chandrasekaran For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Hashwanth Govt. Advocate for R1, R3 and R4. Mr. D.B.R. Prabhu, Standing Counsel, for R2.