K Subramani Vs the District Collector

stream, pond, pathway, Nilaviyal Lake, Nilaviyal Pathai, Government dry land (Government land) and to restore the stream, pond, pathway, Nilaviyal Lake, Nilaviyal Pathai and Government dry land to their original shape and condition comprising in Survey Nos.352/1C, 356, 346, 286, 288/10, 350/2B, 351/3A, 351/3E, 343/2, 345, 285, 287/2, 288/1, 279, 280, 281, 348/1, 348/3, 349/1, 360, 361, 364, 365/1, 355, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334/5, 334/6 and 334/8B situated at Panaimadal Village and Post Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District within Registration District of Salem, Sub Registration District of Pethanaickenpalayam, within a time frame.

¶41

For petitioner Mr. J. Agni Selvaraju For RR 1 to 4 Mr. T.K. Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶42

For R5 Mr. A.M. Ayyadurai Government Advocate

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶45

In the captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity), writ petitioner has sought a mandamus qua 31 survey numbers in Panaimadal Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District alleging that lands in those 31 survey numbers are stream,

¶46

Page Nos.3/8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P. No.5740 of 2025

¶49

pond, pathway, etc . and further alleging that those lands have been encroached upon by RR 6 to 22 affecting writ petitioner's rights qua writ petitioner's property.

¶50

Issue notice to official respondents.

¶51

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government

¶52

Pleader, accepts notice for RR 1 to 4 and Mr. A.M. Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R5.

¶53

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel for RR 1 to 4 submits, on instructions, that lands in S.Nos.355 and 334/8B are patta lands.

¶54

Therefore, lands in remaining 29 survey numbers will be referred to as 'public lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity. If the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the submission of learned State counsel for RR 1 to 4 that S.Nos.355 and 334/8B are patta lands, it is

¶55

open to the writ petitioner to work out remedy in the appropriate forum inter alia by making a representation.

¶56

Page Nos.4/8

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P. No.5740 of 2025

¶59

Learned State counsel for RR 1 to 4 submits that survey qua public lands is on the anvil and if encroachment/s is/are found, suitable action under appropriate/applicable statute will be initiated. 'Suitable action under appropriate/applicable statute will be initiated' would necessarily mean that, be it R6 to R22 or any other alleged encroacher/s, they will be show caused and they will be given an opportunity, is learned State counsel's say.

¶60

We make it clear that when show caused, all the rights and contentions of R6 to R22 and other alleged encroacher(s), if any, will stand preserved untrammelled by this order. In other words, we are not passing any order adverse to RR 6 to 22 and on the contrary, we are preserving all the rights and contentions of RR 6 to 22 and other alleged encroacher/s, when show caused. Therefore, there is no impediment in taking up the WP with the consent of learned State counsel and learned counsel on record for writ petitioner. We do so.

¶61

In the light of the narrative thus far, the following order is

¶62

made:

¶63

Page Nos.5/8

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P. No.5740 of 2025

¶66

(i) There shall be a survey of public lands by R4 as expeditiously as the business of R4 permits but in any event within a period of 12 weeks from today i.e., on or before 16.05.2025;

¶67

(ii) In the survey, if any encroachment/s is/are noticed, the alleged encroacher(s), be it RR 6 to 22 or any other person/entity, shall be show caused.

¶68

(iii) When show caused, the rights of RR 6 to 22 and other alleged encroacher/s are preserved to send a suitable response;

¶69

(iv) The response of RR 6 to 22 and/or other alleged encroacher/s shall be considered on their own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order; and

¶70

(v) The entire exercise will be commenced and concluded (obviously if encroachment is noticed in survey) as expeditiously as the business of official respondents permits but latest by twelve weeks from the date on which timeline for survey elapses i.e., by 08.08.2025.

¶71

Page Nos.6/8

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

W.P. No.5740 of 2025

¶74

Captioned WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There

¶75

shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

(M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 21.02.2025

¶77

cad Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No

¶78

Page Nos.7/8

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.P. No.5740 of 2025

¶81

M.SUNDAR, J. and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. cad

¶82

To: 1. The District Collector Collectorate Salem Salem District 636 001

¶83

1. The District Revenue Officer Collectorate Salem Salem District 636 001

¶84

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Attur Salem District 636 117

¶85

1. The Tahsildar Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk Salem District 636 109

¶86

1. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk Salem District 636 109

W.P. No.5740 of 2025

21.02.2025

Page Nos.8/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K Subramani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Subramani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangavel Vs the District Collector

P.Govindasamy Vs the Secretary to Government

Mrs.J.Sanjeevi, Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Anandha Electricals, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl.Archana Agencies, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl.Kumar Sago Factory Vs the Deputy Commercial Tax