Madras High Court

Injunctive relief involving claims of civil rights cannot be granted in writ proceedings.

K.DURAI RAJ vs THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN and country planning

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: April 15, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain Respondents 1 to 3 (state and municipal authorities) from allowing Respondent 4 to evict the Petitioner from a property measuring 2430 sq. feet at S.No.21/2, Upilipalayam Village, Coimbatore

Source reference: p. 1

The dispute involves the Petitioner’s occupation of land which the authorities characterize as Open Space Reservation (OSR) land subject to eviction for encroachment

Source reference: p. 2-3

The matter follows a previous order passed by the High Court in a related proceeding, W.P. No. 5931 of 2026

Source reference: p. 2
02

Issues

Whether a writ of mandamus seeking an injunction against eviction is maintainable when it involves the adjudication of civil rights

Source reference: p. 2

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to procedural due process before being evicted from alleged OSR land

Source reference: p. 2-3
03

Law Applied

The Court primarily applied the principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically the limitation that writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to grant reliefs in the nature of a civil injunction where private civil rights are contested

Source reference: p. 2

It further applied the principle of administrative due process, requiring that enforcement actions for the eviction of encroachers from public or OSR lands must be preceded by a consideration of the occupant's explanations and supporting documents

Source reference: p. 2-3
04

Reasoning

The Court held that the relief sought by the Petitioner was "misconceived," as a writ proceeding is not the appropriate forum for seeking an injunction over civil rights

Source reference: p. 2

Referring to its earlier order in W.P. No. 5931 of 2026, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to present his case

Source reference: p. 2

The Court balanced the municipality's duty to clear encroachments with the Petitioner's right to be heard by directing the Commissioner to consider the Petitioner's explanations and documents before taking a final decision on the enforcement action

Source reference: p. 3
05

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition, denying the primary prayer for an injunction but granting the Petitioner liberty to submit explanations and documents to the Commissioner of the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation

The Court directed the Commissioner to consider such submissions and take a final decision before continuing any enforcement action for the eviction of encroachers from the OSR land

Source reference: p. 2-3

No costs were awarded

Source reference: p. 3
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

K.DURAI RAJvsTHE DIRECTOR OF TOWN and country planning

Madras High Court · April 15, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment