MANONMANI vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Court
Madras High Court

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WP No. 43724 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA013020782025}
Manonmani
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector
District Collector office,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
2. The Engineering Director
The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage
Board (TWAD)
Chennai-5
3. The Administrative Engineer
The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage
Board (TWAD),
Vialage Water Planning Divison,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records in the order
st
Na.Ka.No.3637695/ 2025/Aa3 dated 14.08.2025 passed by the 1
respondent and quash the same Consequently directing the respondent
s to demolish the buildings constructed at old survey No.42 new Survey
No.55/2 to the extent of 40 cents of land at Periyakavanam Village,
Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District and vacate the premises subsequently
hand over the same to the petitioner.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T. Ganesan
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surender
Special Government Pleader For R -1
Mr.S. Andandh
Standing Counsel for R, 2,3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the
order of the District Collector, Thiruvallur dated 14.08.2025.
2. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, appeal
preferred by the petitioner was taken up for adjudication by the District
Collector. Petitioner claims ownership in respect of the subject property
in Old Survey No. 42, New Survey No. 55/2 to an extent of 40 cents in
the land of total extent of 4.05 acres.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subject
land vests with the petitioner based on the partition suit in O.S. No. 36 of
1946. Preliminary decree was passed on 17.12.1950 and the final
decree was passed on 27.02.1950. Possession was taken by the
grandfather of the petitioner in E.P. No. 40 of 1952. The entire extent of
4.05 acres are owned by the ancestors of the grand father of the
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
petitioner. Setting the facts like this, petitioner contends that he is the
absolute owner of the property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that District
Collector has not considered the documents including the Civil Court
decree produced by the petitioner. He has erroneously formed an
opinion that the land has been classified as "Anatheenam", and based
on the said classification, a sewerage treatment plant has been
constructed for the benefit of the people residing in that locality. Thus,
the order of the District Collector is to be set aside.
st
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1
respondent would oppose by stating that subject land was classified as
"Anatheenam" in the settlement A- register long before. The revenue
records were verified by the District Collector during enquiry and that
apart, Government has not been included as a party in the suit. It is only
a partition suit instituted between the family members, which would not
be the basis for claiming title or ownership of the property. The property
belongs to Government, and Government has already constructed a
sewerage treatment plant for the benefit of the people residing in that
locality and the plant is in operation for several years. Therefore, claim
set out by the petitioner is stale and deserves to be rejected.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and
3 would also reiterate that Collector, during the course of enquiry,
verified the nature of the entries made in the revenue register and found
that subject land has been classified as “Anatheenam”. More so, the
land is in public use and the sewerage treatment plant constructed is
functional. That being so, the writ petition is devoid of merits.
7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made
between the parties to the lis on hand.
8. Except the partition suit decree, petitioner has not produced
any acceptable document to show that he is the owner of the property.
Even if any such document has been produced in a writ petition, the
same cannot be adjudicated, since the disputes relating to civil rights are
to be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court of law. Partition suit
has been instituted between the family members. Therefore, the said
decree was rightly not considered by the District Collector. District
Collector during the course of enquiry verified the revenue documents
and made a finding as follows:
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
9. That apart, sewerage treatment plant has already been
constructed and is functioning for the benefit of the people residing in
that locality for several years. Thus, removal of the said plant would not
arise at all.
10. District Collector also recorded the fact that petitioner has
not produced any document to establish his title/ownership, except the
partition decree obtained between the family members. On the said
ground, District Collector rejected the appeal through impunged
proceedings dated 14.08.2025.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
11. Petitioner has not produced any acceptable document or
evidence to establish the civil right in respect of the subject property.
Thus, District Collector verified the revenue documents and found that
subject property is classified as "Anatheenam". If at all, petitioner claims
any title/ownership in respect of the subject property, he has to establish
the same in the manner known to law by approaching the competent
Court. However, District Collector conducted an adjudication with
reference to the classification and nature of the land and made a finding
based on the revenue records that subject land is classified as
“Anatheenam”, and more so a public project, namely a sewerage
treatment plant was constructed long before and is functioning for the
benefit of the people residing in that locality.
12. This being the finding, this Court does not find any
acceptable reason for entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ
petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.)
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GD
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
To
1. The District Collector
District Collector office,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
2. The Engineering Director
The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage
Board (TWAD)
Chennai-5
3. The Administrative Engineer
The Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage
Board (TWAD),
Vialage Water Planning Divison,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )

2026:MHC:4412
WP No. 43724 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
GD
WP No. 43724 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:16 pm )