Article 226 judicial review ensures procedural compliance and excludes adjudication of title or civil rights.

The petitioner filed a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an encroachment removal notice dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) under Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998

The GCC identified 16 houses and 9 shops as encroachments on Corporation property and initiated enforcement actions

The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted and that enforcement began before a final order was passed

Conversely, the respondent submitted that hearing notices were issued on 14.02.2026 and 20.02.2026, which the petitioner ignored, leading to a final eviction order on 12.03.2026

1. Whether the respondent authorities followed the statutory procedure for the removal of encroachments as prescribed under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can adjudicate disputed questions of title or civil rights in a writ proceeding.

The court primarily applied Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, which empowers authorities to remove structures encroaching on public streets or lands after providing a seven-day show-cause notice

It further applied the principle of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding that the court's role is to ensure that the decision-making process is in consonance with statutes and rules, rather than reviewing the decision itself or adjudicating disputed facts/civil rights

The court found that the GCC strictly adhered to the procedural requirements of Section 128 of the Act. Specifically, a seven-day notice was issued, and despite the petitioner submitting an explanation, they failed to appear for two scheduled personal hearings on 16.02.2026 and 23.02.2026

The court noted that a final order was passed on 12.03.2026 after considering the petitioner's written representation, and this order was handed over to the petitioner's counsel during the court proceedings

Regarding the petitioner's claim of holding a patta (title deed) for the land, the court reasoned that such claims constitute "disputed facts" or "civil rights" that cannot be adjudicated under Article 226

The court’s jurisdiction is limited to verifying procedural compliance, which was established in this case

The court held that if the petitioner wishes to establish title or ownership (based on the patta), they must seek a remedy through a competent civil court rather than through a writ petition

All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed