Madras High CourtWP/33088/2025dismissed

M.Indiran v. The District Collector

2025-09-02Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN & W.M.P.No.37151 of 2025 M.Indiran ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector District Collector Office Cuddalore.

2. The District Revenue Officer District Revenue Office Cuddalore.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer District Revenue Divisional Office Cuddalore.

4. Block Development Officer Block Development Office Nallur Panchayat Union Vappur Taluk, Cuddalore District.

5. The Revenue Tahsildar Taluk Office Veppur, Cuddalore District.

6. The Divisional Engineer Divisional Engineer Office Public Works Department (PWD) Virudhachalam.

7. District Rural Development Officer District Rural Development Agency Office Cuddalore 607 001.

8. Subramaniyan ..

Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representations dated 11.07.2025 for initiating action against the encroachers and remove the unauthorised occupants in the water body, pond and water canal passes through or from Perieri lake situated at Survey No.18, Ko.Kothanur Village, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Kathirudayan For Respondents :

Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 7

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Petitioner has filed this petition alleging encroachments made on waterbody, pond and water canal passing through Perieri lake

situated at Survey No.18, Ko.Kothanur Village, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District .

2. We find that representation was made on 11.07.2025 and even without waiting for a reasonable time, petitioner has rushed to file this petition on 28.08.2025.

3. Petition is premature. It is only when no action is taken within a reasonable time, say six months, a party can approach the Court alleging inaction. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. This order shall not come in the way of official respondents holding appropriate survey in view of the complaint made by petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 02.09.2025 Index :

Yes/No Yes/No kpl