Disposed

M.Rajaprabhu v. The State Government of Tamil nadu

Madras HC21 Aug 2025WP(MD)/19175/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Activist sought restoration of a waterbody (Kuttai) encroached upon in Pattukottai. The court noted only 10 cents remained classified as water body after town survey, with pattas issued for the rest, and directed the Tahsildar to restore that 10 cents as Kuttai.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to restore 10 cents as Kuttai; petitioner associated in restoration; liberty to challenge ryotwari patta before Commissioner of Land Administration.

M.Rajaprabhu Vs The State Government of Tamil nadu — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19175 of 2025

M.Rajaprabhu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Government of Tamil Nadu

¶11

Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai-600 009.

¶13

2.The State Government of Tamil Nadu

¶14

Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George,

¶15

Chennai-600 009.

¶16

3.The Commissionerate of Land Administration,

¶17

Rep. By its Commissioner, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶18

Chennai-600 005.

¶19

4.The District Collector, Thanjavur District Collectorate, Thanjavur-613 001.

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶23

5.The Commissioner, Pattukottai Municipal Corporation, Pattukottai-614 602.

¶24

6.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District Collectorate, Thanjavur-613 001.

¶25

7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai-614 602.

¶26

8.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pattukottai Town, Pattukottai-614 602.

¶27

9.The Village Administrative Officer, Maharajasamudhram Revenue Village, Pattukottai Town, Pattukottai.

¶28

10.V.Jayendran ... Respondents (R10 is impleaded by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 in W.M.P.(MD)No.17399 of 2025)

¶29

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein remove the encroachments made by the private individuals in the Old Survey No. 186/2, Vivekanandar Street, Aranthangi Salai, Maharajasamudhram Revenue Village, Pattukottai Town and to restore the Mangamma Kuttai Waterbody by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner vide his letter dated 23.06.2025.

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶33

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Mohamed Ashfalk For Respondents :Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate for R1 to R4 & R6 to R9 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan for R5 : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian for R10

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Heard both sides.

¶36

The petitioner is a activist. The petitioner seeks restoration of the water body in old Survey No.186/2, Maharajasamudhram Village.

¶37

When the matter was taken up 'for disposal', it is seen that the old survey number has already been sub-divided during town survey. As on date, the New Survey No.186/1 part equivalent to Survey No.60/1 alone has been classified as water body (Kuttai) and it measures an extent of 10 cents. In respect of the remaining extent in the old survey number, patta has already been issued.

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶41

We dispose of the writ petition in the following terms:-

¶42

(I) The eight respondent is directed to ensure that 10 cents of land in

¶43

old Survey No.186/2 is restored as “Kuttai”.

¶44

(II) The petitioner also can be associated in the process of such restoration.

¶45

(III) The petitioner is given liberty to challenge the issuance of ryotwari patta in respect of the remaining extent of land before the Commissioner of Land Administration.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 21.08.2025

¶48

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No rmi

¶49

¶50

1.The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶51

4/6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶54

2.The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶55

3.The Commissionerate of Land Administration, Rep. By its Commissioner, 2^nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶56

4.The District Collector, Thanjavur District Collectorate, Thanjavur-613 001.

¶57

5.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District Collectorate, Thanjavur-613 001.

¶58

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai-614 602.

¶59

7.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pattukottai Town, Pattukottai-614 602.

¶60

8.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pattukottai Town, Pattukottai-614 602.

¶61

5/6

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶64

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

and

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

rmi

W.P(MD)No.19175 of 2025

¶69

21.08.2025

¶70

6/6

¶71

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

M.Rajaprabhu v. The State Government of Tamil nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajaprabhu v. The State Government of Tamil nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvakumar Vs The District Collector/Monitoring Committee

Kanthaiah Vs The District Collector

B.Gopi Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Parimala Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Samayan M Vs The District Collector

Balaji G Vs The District Collector