D.Kamalam v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Tmt.Kamalam ... Petitioner -Vs1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Ariyalur District.

2. TheTahsildar, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

3. The Block Development Officer (V.P), Ariyalur Panchayat Union, Ariyalur District.

4. Arumugham

5. Natarajan

6. Selvam 1/9

7. Saminathan

8. Periyasamy

9. Chinnadurai

10. Manikandan ...

Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action for removal of all encroachments and blockades made in the water channel (Vari Poramboke) in S.F.No.71 at Pudupalayam Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondents :

Mr.E.Vijay Anand Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate for R3 Notice dispensed with for R4 to R10

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus to direct the 2/9

respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action for removal of all encroachments and blockades made in the water channel (Vari Poramboke) in S.F.No.71 at Pudupalayam Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

2. Heard Mr,S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.D.Gopal, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent. In view of the order that is going to be passed in the writ petition, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Survey No.71 at Pudupalayam Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District is a water channel, i.e., Vary Poramboke which is encroached and blockades have been made in the Vary Poramboke water channel by the private respondents.

4. In order to remove such encroachment, from 2022 onwards, several times, representations have been made by the petitioner to the official 3/9

respondents, especially respondents 2 & 3, very particularly, the third respondent and every time, the third respondent on receipt of such representations will give a reply stating that, the action will be taken to remove such encroachment shortly. This episode continues for the past three years with frequent intervals.

5. But no fruitful action has been initiated by the respondents, especially the third respondent or even the second respondent and both are responsible to take such action for removal of such encroachment, especially from water channel, i.e., Vary Poramboke.

6. Despite the repeated attempts having been made by the petitioner, the official respondents seems to have not acted upon except by giving a reply which itself shows the cavalier attitude on the part of the respondents, especially the respondents 2 & 3 even in the removal of encroachment in the water body. This inaction on the part of the officials are liable to be deprecated. 4/9

7. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

(i) that there shall be a direction to the official respondents, especially the respondents 2 & 3 to take action immediately on the representations given at various point of time from 2022 till date by the petitioner which in fact have been received by them and a reply also had been given stating that the action would be taken to remove such encroachment shortly.

(ii) Such a removal drive from the water body shall immediately be undertaken by the respondents 2 & 3 by giving notice to the petitioner as well as the private respondents after conducting thorough survey of the land in question and such a course of action shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) Within such period despite this order, if the respondents 2 & 3 have not acted upon, a suitable disciplinary action can also be initiated against them by the first respondent / District Collector.

5/9

8. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 11.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji To

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Ariyalur District.

2. TheTahsildar, Ariyalur Taluk, Ariyalur District.

6/9

3. The Block Development Officer (V.P), Ariyalur Panchayat Union, Ariyalur District.

7/9

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

vji 8/9

11.11.2025 9/9