S.Suresh Kumar v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN and WMP.No.21393 of 2026
1. S.Suresh Kumar
2. S.Saroja
3. R.Suganthi ..Petitioners Vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariate, Chennai 600 009
2. The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 3.The District Collector, Chairperson of District Monitoring Committee District Collectorate,
4. The District Revenue Officer, Convenor of Divisional Monitoring Committee,
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chairperson of Divisional Monitoring Committee,
6. The Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk,
7. The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Pattanam Muniyampalayam Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District - 637 407 ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the 7th respondent and quash the same and consequential direction directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps pertaining to the petitioners' poultry shed, situated at S.No.32/3 of Puthur Malayalapatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District, till the disposal of the petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2025 seeking realignment of the water course, pending before the District Monitoring Committee and to pass orders.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Senthil S For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard both sides.
2.
The petitioners have been served with notice under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, by the 6th respondent. It is well settled that neither the Panchayat president nor the Block Development Officer can coercively enforce an eviction order. They can however call upon the petitioners to remove the encroachment in question. If the petitioners fail to comply with the said demand, the only coercive action open to the authorities is to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Tahsildar.
3.
As and when the Tahsildhar initiates action under the Land Encroachment Act, the petitioners can very well place all his defences. Leaving open all the contentions of the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of. We once again clarify that the impugned eviction order cannot be coercively enforced by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(G.R.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.) 20-05-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No dna/rka
G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.
and V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
dna/rka To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Tamil Nadu Government, Secretariate, Chennai 600 009
2. The Additional Chief Secretary cum Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 3.The District Collector, Chairperson of District Monitoring Committee District Collectorate,
4. The District Revenue Officer, Convenor of Divisional Monitoring Committee,
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chairperson of Divisional Monitoring Committee, Namakkal.
6. The Tahsildar, Rasipuram Taluk,
7. The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Pattanam Muniyampalayam Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District - 637 407 and WMP.No.21393 of 2026 20-05-2026