Disposed¶53

D.Rameshkumaran, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC2 Jul 2025WP(MD)/17546/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment removal; HR & CE temple land; Survey No.303; Kuttam Village; Vedasanthur / Vedasandur / Vedachandur Taluk; Dindigul District; Odai restoration; boundary demarcation; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; field inspection; revenue records; twelve-week compliance timeline; disposal of writ petitions; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; order dated 02.07.2025; W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019; W.M.P(MD)No.9943 of 2019; S.M. Subramaniam J.; A.D. Maria Clete J.

What did the court decide?

With the above directions (liberty to file a fresh complaint; field inspection against revenue records; initiation of removal proceedings under the relevant Act and Rules if encroachments subsist, to be completed within twelve weeks), the Writ Petitions stand disposed of; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

D.Rameshkumaran, Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the encroachments on the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment land in Survey No.303 of Kuttam Village have in fact been removed, given that the authorities submitted that removal was completed while the petitioners disputed it. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

Since the petitioners dispute the claim that the encroachments have been removed, the submission of the authorities that the encroachments have been removed deserves to be re-visited rather than accepted at face value.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are at liberty to submit a clear complaint setting out the encroachments as stated by them to the competent authorities of the HR & CE Department and the revenue authorities.

¶47

Key takeaways

Upon such complaint, the competent authorities of the HR & CE Department and the revenue authorities can conduct a field inspection with reference to the revenue records.ratio¶48
If encroachments exist as of now, all appropriate actions are directed to be initiated to remove the encroachments by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant Act and Rules.ratio¶52
The said exercise of inspection and, if necessary, removal is directed to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 02.07.2025 (Coram: S.M. Subramaniam and Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, JJ.; order authored by S.M. Subramaniam, J.) disposing W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 and 13362 of 2019 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Writ of Mandamus for removal of encroachments and survey/demarcation of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment land in Survey No.303 of Kuttam Village, Vedasanthur/Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District, including restoration of an Odai and prevention of encroachments said to have been made by private respondents (including Rajappan, Packiam, Akila and Babu). When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader reported on written instructions that the encroachments had been removed; the petitioners countered that the encroachment blocked the free flow of water and that a private road had been formed by the private respondents, disputing the claimed removal. Holding that the authorities' submission deserved to be re-visited, the Court permitted the petitioners to submit a clear complaint of the encroachments to the competent HR & CE and revenue authorities, directed a field inspection with reference to the revenue records, and ordered that if encroachments exist as of now all appropriate actions be initiated to remove them under the procedures contemplated by the relevant Act and Rules, completing the exercise within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019 and

¶8

W.M.P(MD)No.9943 of 2019

¶9

1.W.P(MD)No.17546 of 2017 :

¶10

D.Rameshkumaran ... Petitioner

¶11

vs.

¶12

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶14

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. 4.The Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District. 5.Rajappan ... Respondents

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

PRAYER :

¶18

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶19

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to completely clear the encroachment made by the fifth respondent on the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment land in Survey No.303 of Kuttam Village including to remove the new gate put up by him for the purpose of an encroachment.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For RR 3 & 4 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For R – 5 : Mr.A.V.Arun

¶21

2.W.P(MD)No.13362 of 2019 :

¶22

Tatapathy ... Petitioner

¶23

vs.

¶24

1.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶25

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶26

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶27

2/8

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶30

4.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶31

5.The Block Development Officer, Vedasanthur Panchayat Union, Veadasanthur, Dindigul District.

¶32

6.Packiam

¶33

7.Akila

¶34

8.Babu ... Respondents

¶35

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to survey and demarcate and fix the boundaries of S.No.303, Kanimar Kovil land in Kuttam Village, Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District and also restore the Odai running through the S.No.303 to its original position by removing all the encroachments and permit the petitioner and the villagers of Kuttam, Viruthalaipatti, Kalvarpatti, V.Puthukottai and Boothipuram of Vedasanthur Taluk, Dindigul District to plant and raise trees and fence the entire property and maintain it out of their own funds without staking any claim or right over the property or in the alternative direct the respondents 1 to 5 to maintain the above said land without encroachment and by fencing it.

¶36

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For RR 1 & 4 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R – 5 : Mr.M.Rajarajan For RR 6 to 8 : Mr.A.V.Arun

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶40

COMMON ORDER

¶41

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶42

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned

¶43

Government Pleader, based on the written instructions, submitted that the encroachments have been removed.

¶44

2.The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that the encroachment is blocking the access way for the free flow of water. A private road has been formed by the private respondents to reach their own land.

¶45

3.However, the removal is now disputed by the petitioners.

¶46

Therefore, the submission of the authorities that the encroachments have been removed deserves to be re-visited.

¶47

4.In view of the above, the petitioners are at liberty to submit a clear

¶48

complaint setting out the encroachments as stated by them to the competent authorities of the HR & CE Department and the revenue authorities, who in turn, can conduct a field inspection with reference to the revenue records and if

¶49

4/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶52

encroachments exist as of now, all appropriate actions are directed to be initiated to remove the encroachments by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant Act and Rules. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

5.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶54

[S.M.S.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.] 02.07.2025

¶55

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶56

5/8

¶57

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

¶58

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶59

¶60

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

¶61

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶62

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶63

4.The Tahsildar, Vedachandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶64

5.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶65

6.The Joint Commissioner,

¶66

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶67

7.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶68

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

¶69

8.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶70

6/8

¶71

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

¶72

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶73

9.The Block Development Officer, Vedasanthur Panchayat Union, Veadasanthur, Dindigul District.

¶74

7/8

¶75

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

¶76

W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶77

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶78

¶79

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)Nos.17546 of 2017 & 13362 of 2019

¶80

DATED : 02.07.2025

¶81

8/8

¶82

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

D.Rameshkumaran, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Rameshkumaran, v. the Commissioner

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

R.Pasupathi Vs The District Collector

N.Vengadeswaran Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Dig)

A.Venkatesan, S/O.G.Appu, Vs the District Collector

G.Bhagavathy Singh Vs Union of India

K.Raju, Vs the Commissioner of

Hajee T.S. Ahamed Ibrahim, Vs the Principal Secretary to