Madras High Court
V.Saraswathi vs The District Collector on 5 February, 2025
W.P(MD)No.12019 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition(MD)No.12019 of 2018
V.Saraswathi ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai Collector Office Complex,
Madurai. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the second respondent's impugned communication Na.Ka.No.
12016/2017/Aa5 dated 19/04/2018 and quash the same and to direct the
respondents to pay compensation to petitioner for the illegal demolition of her
stall and damaging the articles used for her day-to-day business in her shop
situated in Town Survey No.811/2 at Alagarkovil Main Road, Madurai and
permit her to rebuild her shop and house in the said place by considering
petitioner's representation dated 23.10.2017 within the stipulated time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD)No.12019 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jeyakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan
Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
quash the second respondent's impugned communication Na.Ka.No.
12016/2017/Aa5, dated 19.04.2018, and further to direct the respondents to pay
compensation to the petitioner for the illegal demolition of her Tea Stall and
damaged articles used for her day-to-day business in her shop situated in Town
Survey No.811/2 at Alagarkovil Main Road, Madurai and permit her to rebuild
her shop and house in the said place by considering her representation, dated
23.10.2017.
2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's father, one Vasudevan, had
occupied the land situated in Survey No.811/2 at Alagarkovil Main Road,
Madurai. After his death, the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the
same. She was running a Tea Stall, in which, she was vending food items and
she is residing at the near portion of the property. She filed a suit in O.S.No.
675 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai, and obtained an
interim order of injunction. The defendant in the said suit is the Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Corporation. While so, on 09.10.2017 at about 06.00 a.m., the second
respondent/Tahsildar demolished the Tea Stall and the residential property of
the petitioner. This has given cause of action for the present writ petition.
3. The petitioner claims that property to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- had
been damaged by the second respondent/Tashildar. She relies upon the Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014,
and Rules framed thereunder. She states that she is a 'street vendor' and she had
been removed unceremoniously and therefore, she is entitled to the relief as
stated in the writ petition.
4. Taking note of the allegations, this Court directed the learned
Additional Government Pleader to file a counter.
5. The second respondent/Tashildar, Madurai North, has filed a counter,
wherein he has stated that survey No.811/2 is a water channel. He relied upon
the judgment in the case of T.K.Shanmugam Vs. State reported in
2015(2)CWC 849 stating that over water channels, no civil Court can grant an
order of injunction. It also pleads that the water channel is a drainage channel,
and it is for the Madurai North Village. Encroachments were removed pursuant
to the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.689 of 2005, dated 02.02.2005. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pleads that as the encroachment on the water channel is highly objectionable,
the prayer sought for in this writ petition is not entertainable.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submission of the petitioner and
the respondents.
7. The Town Survey Land Register produced by the learned Additional
Government Pleader shows that S.No.811/2 is a 'Sarkkar Poramboke' and it
classified as “tha;f;fhy; Gwk;Nghf;F” which implies it is a water channel. By
the very fact that it is water channel, any occupation over the same is highly
objectionable. In fact, the Government does not have power to regularize the
encroachment which have been made over the water bodies. The ratio of the
judgment relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader in
T.K.Shanmugam's case (supra) is squarely applies to the facts of this case.
8. The petitioner is not claiming any right, title, or interest against the
Government over the said land. She is an unauthorized occupant of the
property, which is the water channel. Hence, any encroachment of the same is
objectionable. If I were to concede to the prayer of the petitioner, that would be
supporting encroachment over the water channel. That is not the purport of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the civil court had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granted an injunction against the Municipality does not mean it binds the
Tahsildar also.
9. Mr.B.Jeyakumar states that for an encroachment similarly situated, the
very same Tahsildar is taking a lenient view.
10. The learned Additional Government Pleader states that it is the
intention of the Revenue Authorities to remove all the encroachments and not
permit any encroachment over the water channel. He further states that action
has been initiated for the removal of other similar encroachments also.
11. The statement of the Additional Government Pleader is recorded.
12. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
05.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes
skn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai Collector Office Complex,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
skn
Writ Petition(MD)No.12019 of 2018
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
