Madras HC Rejects Plea To Build Kanjanur Union Office On Land Earlier Assigned To Individual, After Officials Identify 2.10-Acre Government Site

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus requiring the authorities to construct the Panchayat Union office at the originally identified site.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, finding no merit in the request for a mandamus or in the challenge to the alternative site.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to construct the newly formed Kanjanur Panchayat Union office on land in S.F. Nos. 218/1 and 218/2, Narasinganur Village, which had earlier been identified for that purpose.

p. 2 · ¶ 1–2

The State submitted that the identified land had been assigned to a private individual in 2018 and was unsuitable and unavailable; it also stated that at least 1.50 acres were required for the proposed complex and future facilities.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4, 8

Following an inspection, the authorities identified 2.10 acres of government poramboke land in S.F. Nos. 292/1 and 292/2, Kanjanur Village, as suitable for construction.

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus requiring the authorities to construct the Panchayat Union office at the originally identified site.

pp. 2, 5–6 · ¶ 1–2, 10

ii.2. Whether the authorities’ decision to identify an alternative site for the proposed office warranted interference by the Court.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus.

The judgment cited no statutory provision or precedent governing the choice of site. Its reasoning proceeded on the basis that the relief sought was not warranted where the original site was unavailable and the authorities had identified an alternative site as suitable after considering the project’s land requirements and other facilities.

pp. 3–6 · ¶ 3–4, 8–10

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the State’s explanation that the original site was affected by an existing assignment to a private person and that its extent fell short of the authorities’ stated minimum requirement.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–4, 6–8

It noted that a multi-official inspection had identified a larger government poramboke site as suitable and that construction was proposed within the 2026–2027 financial year, subject to the requisite order from the Tahsildar.

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to compel construction at the petitioner’s preferred location or to interfere with the alternative-site decision.

p. 6 · ¶ 10