K.P.Karuppusamy v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.No.26733 of 2026 K.P.Karuppusamy S/o. Palani Gounder ... Petitioner vs.

1.

The Commissioner Panchayat Union Sathyamangalam Taluk Erode.

2.

The Tahsildhar Sathyamangalam Erode.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent's order made in Na.Ka.No.1097/2025/A2 dated 08.05.2026 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to terminate the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Krishnakumar For Respondents :

Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel ***** Page Nos.1/4

O R D E R

Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, learned Government Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the communication dated 08.05.2026 issued by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,255/- towards the alleged damage caused to a public road.

3. The petitioner submits that, after obtaining permission from the Tahsildar, he, along with the adjoining landowners, laid underground pipelines through the poromboke land for irrigating their respective agricultural lands. According to the petitioner, the impugned demand has been issued without conducting any enquiry or affording him an opportunity of hearing.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. It is not in dispute that the impugned communication has been Page Nos.2/4

issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Road Inspector, who assessed the damage allegedly caused to the public road. However, the inspection was conducted without notice to the petitioner, and no opportunity was afforded to him to participate in the inspection or explain his case. Further, no show cause notice was issued before fastening liability upon the petitioner. Thus, the impugned communication has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the communication dated 08.05.2026 issued by the first respondent is set aside. It is open to the first respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

7. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

30.06.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No mk Page Nos.3/4

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk To 1.

The Commissioner Panchayat Union Sathyamangalam Taluk Erode.

2.

The Tahsildhar Sathyamangalam Erode.

30.06.2026 Page Nos.4/4