[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 23 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.7714 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P(MD)No.7714 of 2026
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6294 & 6295 of 2026
1.K.Sathyanathan
2.P.Parvatham
3.S.Selvaraj
4.Kanagapandi
5.Kannayiram
6.Jeyakani
7.Muniyabose ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kamudhi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
W.P(MD)No.7714 of 2026
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the impugned order of the second respondent in
Na.Ka.B8/3542/2025 dated 17.11.2025 and the impugned order of the first
respondent in Na.Ka.B3/45149/2025 dated 18.02.2026 and further direction
to the respondents 1 & 2 to issue patta in S.No.69, Nerinijipatti Village,
Kovilankulam Group, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District in respect
of Shri Kannayiramoorthi Ayyanar, Ponnanthi Kali and Karuppsamy
Temples, cemetery and samathu, within a stipulate time as fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar (R1 & R2)
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 18.12.2026 issued
by the first respondent, namely the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, the
petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
2.It is the case of the petitioners that one S.Nehru, a resident of
their village, had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.32634 of 2025
seeking a direction to the authorities to survey certain lands and remove
alleged encroachments in various survey numbers, including Survey No.69,
situated at Kovilankulam Village, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram
District, based on his representations dated 05.06.2025 and 20.07.2025.
According to the petitioners, the said writ petition was motivated by
personal enmity.
3.The petitioners contend that they have not encroached upon
any Government land and that Survey No.69 contains temples, a cemetery,
and samathis, which have been in existence for several decades and are
being used by the village public without any obstruction. It is further stated
that the revenue authorities have wrongly classified the land as a cart track,
despite representations seeking issuance of patta in favour of the temple and
the related structures.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
4.The petitioners further submit that, despite submitting their
objections along with relevant documents and participating in the enquiry,
the first respondent, without properly considering the same, passed the
impugned order directing removal of the alleged encroachments. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
6.On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that
originally a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment
Act, 1905, was issued for removal of encroachment in Survey No.69 to an
extent of 0.71.0 hectares. One S.Nehru had filed a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.32634 of 2025 seeking removal of encroachment, and this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
Court, by order dated 26.11.2025, disposed of the said writ petition directing
the private respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein, to submit
their reply to the authorities concerned. Pursuant to the notice issued under
Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioners
submitted their explanation before the District Collector instead of the
Tahsildar. The District Collector, erroneously treating the said reply as an
appeal under Section 6 of the Act, passed the impugned order.
7.We are of the view that the entire proceedings have been
misconstrued. Since a notice under Section 7 has already been issued, the
petitioners ought to have submitted their explanation to the Tahsildar, who
issued the said notice.
8.In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to submit
their reply to the second respondent, namely the Tahsildar, within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the
same, the second respondent shall consider the reply and pass appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months
thereafter. In the event of any adverse order being passed against the
petitioners, it is open to them to file an appeal before the District Collector
under Section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and
the District Collector shall decide the same on its own merits and in
accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order dated
18.02.2026. Since the proceedings dated 18.02.2026 issued by the first
respondent are without jurisdiction, the same stand quashed.
9.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
23.03.2026
(1/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kamudhi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 23.03.2026
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 03:17:15 pm )
