K.Kaleeswaran v. The Tahsildar,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.18779 of 2025 K.Kaleeswaran ... Petitioner /Vs./
1. The Tahsildar, Ettayapuram Taluk Office, Thoothukudi District.
2. The Block Development Officer, Pudhur Panchayat Union, Ettayapuram , Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned proceedings in NA.KA.NO.AA1-300-2025 dated 1/6
22.07.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the Sarkar Porampokku in survey No.877/19 and make appropriate amendment in the revenue records as per the SLR records within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Cleetus for Mr.A.D.Ganesahmoorthi For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja (R1) Additional Government Pleader Mr.J.Ashok (R2) Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.) The petitioner has challenged show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.AA1-300-2025 dated 22.07.2025 calling upon him to tender an explanation as to whether his occupation of S.No.877/19 situated at Ayanvadamala Puram Village, Ettayapuram Taluk, Thoothukudi District, ('property' / 'property in question') is an encroachment and to show cause 2/6
as to why he should not be vacated from the same within fifteen days.
2. An explanation has also been tendered along with documents. To be noted at para 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner has himself acceded to the position that the property is classified as 'Sarkar Porampoke (Sandhu)'. His only case is that there would be no prejudice caused to any one by him continuing to occupy the property.
3. Since the petitioner has responded to the impugned notice and his explanation is on record before the authorities, we do not deem it appropriate to delve deeper into the matter, as admittedly the explanation would be considered by the authorities.
4. With this, the challenge to impugned notice is rejected and this writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation filed, and the documents, if any produced by the petitioner herein, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this 3/6
order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 03.09.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes sm 4/6
To
1. The Tahsildar, Ettayapuram Taluk Office, Thoothukudi District.
2. The Block Development Officer, Pudhur Panchayat Union, Ettayapuram , Thoothukudi District.
5/6
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
sm Order made in Dated:
03.09.2025 6/6