Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Durai Raj, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 (Director of Town and Country Planning, Commissioner of Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, and Assistant Commissioner) to forbear the 4th respondent, Rajasekaran, from evicting the petitioner from property bearing S.No.21/2, extent 2430 sq. feet, situated at Upilipalayam Village, Coimbatore District, without following due process of law. The court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender, heard the matter. The petitioner was represented by Mr. M. Vijayan for Mr. M. Arun, while respondents 1 to 3 were represented by Mr. T. Arunkumar (Additional Government Pleader) and Mr. N. Velmurugan (Standing Counsel). There was no appearance for the 4th respondent. The court observed that the relief sought was in the nature of an injunction, which involves claiming a civil right, and such relief cannot be granted in a writ proceeding. The court noted that a related writ petition, W.P.No.5931 of 2026, had already been disposed of on 15.04.2026, wherein the petitioner was given liberty to submit explanations and documents to the authority. The Commissioner was directed to consider the same and take a final decision before continuing enforcement action for eviction of encroachers on OSR land. Consequently, the court disposed of the present writ petition as misconceived, with no costs, and closed any connected miscellaneous petitions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ of Mandamus for Injunction - Relief sought in the nature of injunction against eviction from property involves adjudication of civil rights and cannot be granted in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Held that such a relief is misconceived and the petitioner must approach the civil court (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be granted to restrain a private party from evicting the petitioner from property, thereby adjudicating civil rights in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of as misconceived. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. The petitioner is at liberty to submit explanations/documents to the Commissioner, who shall consider and take a final decision before continuing enforcement action for eviction of encroachers on OSR land.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus not available for injunction
- Civil rights cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings
- Alternative remedy of civil suit
Case Details
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender
Mr. M. Vijayan for Mr. M. Arun (Petitioner), Mr. T. Arunkumar (R1), Mr. N. Velmurugan (R2 & R3)
1. The Director Of Town And Country Planning, 2. The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, 3. Assistant Commissioner (East), Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, 4. Rajasekaran
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the 4th respondent from evicting the petitioner from property.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1-3 to forbear the 4th respondent from evicting the petitioner from property S.No.21/2, extent 2430 sq. feet, at Upilipalayam Village, Coimbatore District, without due process.
Filing Reason
Petitioner apprehended eviction by the 4th respondent from the property and sought court intervention to prevent such eviction without following due process.
Previous Decisions
A related writ petition W.P.No.5931 of 2026 was disposed of on 15.04.2026, wherein the petitioner was given liberty to submit explanations/documents to the authority, and the Commissioner was directed to consider and decide before continuing eviction of encroachers on OSR land.
Issues
Whether a writ of mandamus can be granted to restrain a private party from evicting the petitioner, involving adjudication of civil rights.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the 4th respondent should be restrained from evicting him without due process of law.
Respondents 1-3 submitted through counsel, but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ of mandamus cannot be granted for a relief in the nature of an injunction involving civil rights, as such rights cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
Relief sought for in the present writ petition is misconceived. Such a relief in nature of an injunction cannot be granted in a writ proceeding, since it involves claiming of civil right by the writ petitioner.
In view of the order already passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.5931 of 2026, dated 15.04.2026, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanations, along with the documents, if any to the authority and on receipt of the same, Commissioner, Corporation may consider the same and take a final decision and thereafter, continue the enforcement action for eviction of encroachers in the OSR land.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed WP No. 50446 of 2025 seeking a writ of mandamus. A related writ petition W.P.No.5931 of 2026 was disposed of on 15.04.2026. The present petition was heard and disposed of on 15.04.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
