Urgency, Possibility Of Disposal To Be Considered While Directing Early Disposal Of Case; Blanket Direction May Prejudice Others: Madras High Court

The Writ Petition before the High Court was filed under Article 226 for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector to dispose of the appeal along with the stay application filed against a notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

The Division Bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan held, “Every Court or statutory Authority is expected to dispose of the appeals, revisions, etc., systematically and in the order of seniority and if any preference is required, reasons must be recorded. By securing a direction from the High Court if any particular matter alone is disposed of, it would cause prejudice to the other persons, who are all waiting for disposal of their appeals, revisions, etc. before the Authorities. In other words, a blanket direction may cause prejudice to other persons, who are all waiting for long time for disposal of their cases.”

“Therefore, the High Court, while issuing a direction to dispose of the cases by the District Courts, statutory Authorities, etc. has to take into consideration the urgency required and possibility of disposal of those cases within the timeline, if any, fixed by the High Court. Even in some cases directions are issued, and parties may not cooperate for early disposal. Then, it will cause inconvenience to the Authorities”, it added.

Advocate R.Rajarajan represented the Petitioner while Additional Government Pleader T.Arunkumar represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner was identified as an encroacher, and enforcement actions were initiated by the competent authority. After issuance of a notice under Section 7 of the Act and after affording an opportunity, a final notice was issued. Thereafter, an appeal under Section 10 was filed before the District Collector. It was the petitioner’s case that, along with the appeal, an application seeking a grant of stay was filed. The Writ Petition was instituted as the Collector had not disposed of the appeal and stay petition.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that merely issuing a direction to dispose of the appeal or stay petition would do no service to the cause of justice. Considering that such Writ Petitions are filed routinely, the Bench stated that the High Court, in such circumstances, is not expected to issue routine directions, in view of the fact that several similar petitions are pending before the Government and the competent Authorities. “The Authorities will have to dispose of the appeals, revisions, etc., in a systematic manner by making entries in a register and in the order of seniority”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner had filed the appeal on November 27, 2025. Within one month, he filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal and the stay petition. The Bench took note of the fact that he did not even allow the Authorities to consider the appeal and the petitions filed along with it.

Considering that the petitioner had not established any right even before the Civil Court, the Bench refused to issue any direction as sought in the Writ Petition. “However, the Government has to dispose of the matters in the order of seniority and by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes and Rules in force”, the order read.

Thus, in light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Ponmudi v. The District Collector (Case No.:W.P. No. 993 of 2026)

Click here to read/download Order