Madras High CourtREV.APLW(MD)/175/2025disposed of

M.Peya Pandian, v. M.Meenal Pandian

2025-09-18Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan,Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi5 pages

1 REV.APLW.(MD)NO.175 OF 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI REV.APLW.(MD)No.175 of 2025 IN W.P.(MD)No.21084 of 2025 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.19595 of 2025 M.Peya Pandian ... Review Petitioner/5th Respondent Vs.

1. M.Meenal Pandian ... 1st Respondent / Writ petitioner

2. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

3. The Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat), Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District.

4. The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

5. The Executive Officer, Sorikkampatti Village Panchayat, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District.

... Respondents 2 to 5 / Respondents 1 to 4 Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuing a Writ of Mandamus, to review the 1/5

2 REV.APLW.(MD)NO.175 OF 2025 order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21084 of 2025 dated 07.08.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R-2 to R-5 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The first respondent herein filed W.P.(MD)No.21084 of 2025 alleging that the review applicant has committed encroachment. We disposed of the writ petition on 07.08.2025. It is true that the review applicant was not put on notice. On that ground, the order cannot be reviewed. This is because we had taken care to protect the rights of the review applicant. We only directed the authorities to conduct survey. We clarified that before conducting survey, notice should be given. We have further observed that if any encroachment is committed, all the encroachers shall not only be put on notice but 2/5

3 REV.APLW.(MD)NO.175 OF 2025 also given due opportunity. If according to the review applicant, the lands covered in the writ order are not water bodies, it is always open to the review applicant to prove the same. It appears that the writ petitioner was at loggerheads with the review applicant. The learned counsel for the review applicant seriously questioned the bona fides and credentials of the writ petitioner.

3. In environmental matters, we would entertain the writ petitions filed by anybody if they are for removal of encroachment in water bodies. It was brought to our notice that a water body has been encroached. We only directed that the encroachers should be put on notice and also given due opportunity and that the authorities should take action. This review application stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (B.PUGALENDHI, J.) 18th September 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU 3/5

4 REV.APLW.(MD)NO.175 OF 2025 To:

1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Block Development Officer(Village Panchayat), Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District.

3. The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

4. The Executive Officer, Sorikkampatti Village Panchayat, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Madurai District.

4/5

5 REV.APLW.(MD)NO.175 OF 2025 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

AND B.PUGALENDHI, J.

PMU REV.APLC.(MD)No.175 of 2025 18.09.2025 5/5