V.Senthil Kumar v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI V.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

5.The Village Administrative Officer, Kidarippatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

6.S.N.Rajendran 1/6

7.Vijayan 8.Gandhimathi 9.Puyalvannan 10.Karthikeyan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein to take action against the encroachers in accordance with law and remove all the encroachments over the 'Sandi Kulam Pond' located in the Survey No. 451/1A and 451/1B and further restore its landscape along with its Patta Records within a stipulated time period.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan For Respondents : Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.5

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

2/6

2.The petitioner wants action to be taken in respect of the petition mentioned survey numbers. According to the petitioner, they have been classified as "water bodies".

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader would point out that the sixth respondent herein had earlier filed W.P(MD)No.1956 of 2024 and obtained the following order:

"Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner had given a representation to the first respondent seeking reclassification of the petitionmentioned land. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petition-mentioned land had been wrongly classified as "Kulam". According to him, the earlier records would clearly indicate that it was only a land classified as " Tharisu" and not as water body.

3. All that the petitioner wants is that an enquiry should be conducted and final order shall be passed on the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2023.

4. The first respondent is directed to hold an enquiry in this regard. The petitioner also will be given an opportunity to place his case. Based on the outcome of the enquiry, the first respondent shall pass final order on merits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise will be completed within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3/6

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs."

Pursuant to the said direction, the Director, Land Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai had issued proceedings dated 18.10.2024 upholding the contention of the fourth respondent. Copy of the said proceedings has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law. 4.With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 22.04.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

4/6

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

5.The Village Administrative Officer, Kidarippatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District.

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and B.PUGALENDHI, J.

MGA 22.04.2025 6/6