Disposed¶42

C.Govindharaj v. Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board

Madras HC22 Oct 2025WP(MD)/24638/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025, decided 22.10.2025; writ of mandamus; tree felling; neem tree; non-scheduled/exempted tree; Tamil Nadu Boomidhana/Bhoodan Board land; Survey No.1835/1 Sithayagoundanpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District; survey dated 13.09.2025; warning and undertaking by tree-cutters; writ petition closed; caution to private respondents; no costs; Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without grant of the prayed-for mandamus; the Court recorded the counters, cautioned the private respondents against unnecessary felling of trees even if non-scheduled, and made no order as to costs. ¶42

C.Govindharaj Vs Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 5 to prohibit the sixth respondent from cutting trees in Survey No.1835/1, Sithayagoundanpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District (land belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board). +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The Court identified the subject matter of the petition as Survey No.1835/1, Sithayagoundanpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District ('land in question'), and stated that as per the counter filed by R4 (Tahsildar) the land belongs to the Tamil Nadu Boomidhana Board.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the position in R4's counter (branches of neem trees, non-scheduled trees, were cut) to align with the counter of R6, who confirmed that branches of neem trees had been cut in the patta land.

¶40

Key takeaways

Recording the counters, the Court cautioned the private respondents to ensure there is no unnecessary felling of trees, even if non-scheduled, in or around the land in question, and closed the writ petition with no order as to costs.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus sought under Article 226 to restrain the sixth respondent from cutting trees in Survey No.1835/1, Sithayagoundanpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District, stated to belong to the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board, and to recover timber from him. Per the Tahsildar's counter, a survey on 13.09.2025 found only one branch of a neem tree cut in Survey No.1835/1 (classified as 'Tamil Nadu Boomidhana Board', 0.96.00, Patta No.5700), while two trees were cut in adjoining patta land Survey No.1836/2 (0.48.50, Patta No.6659, Thirumalraj and 2 others) without permission; neem being a non-scheduled (exempted) tree, the persons who cut the branch were warned and gave undertakings. The Madurai Bench (order by Dr. Anita Sumanth, J., with C. Kumarappan, J.) recorded the counters, found them aligned, cautioned the private respondents against unnecessary felling of even non-scheduled trees in or around the land, and closed the writ petition. No costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025

C.Govindharaj

... Petitioner

Vs.

Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board, Represented by its Chairman, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.

¶12

The Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶13

Chennai - 5.

¶14

The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Theni, Theni District.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Andipatty Taluk, Theni District.

¶16

The Inspector of Police, Ethakovil Police Station, Theni District.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025

¶20

6. Raja

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 forthwith prohibit the 6^th respondent from cutting the trees unlawfully in land belonged to 1^st respondent in S.No.1835/1 situated at Sithayagoundanpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District and consequently direct the respondents to take action against the 6^th respondent and to recover the timber wood from him by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.06.2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar (R1 to R4) Government Pleader : Mr.P.Kottaichamy (R5) Government Advocate : Mr.K.Dinesh (R6)

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶26

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Mandamus directing the official respondents to restrain the sixth respondent from cutting tress in the land comprised in Survey No.1835/1, Sithayagoundanpatti Village,

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025

¶30

Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to take action as against R6 and to recover the timber from him.

¶31

2.Counters have been filed by the official respondents as well

¶32

as by R6.

¶33

3.As far as counter filed by Tahsildar, Aundipatti/R4 is concerned, he states as follows:

¶34

“4.It is humbly submitted that survey was conducted by a team of officials on 13.09.2025 in the property comprised in Survey Nos.1835/1 and 1836/2. On the course of survey, it was found that only one neem tree has been cut down in Survey No.1835/1 and one of the branches of the tree was cut down and the branch remains at the land. Two trees were cut down in the Survey No.1836/2 which does not obtain any permission from the concern authorities.

¶35

5.It is humbly submitted that the Survey No. 1835/1 is classified as “Tamil Nadu Boomidhana Board” having an extent of 0.96.00 bearing Patta No.5700. The Survey No.1836/2 is a patta land having an extent of 0.48.50 bearing Patta No.6659 in the name of Thirumalraj and 2 others. The authorities have warned the persons who have cut down the branch of the neem tree in Survey No.1835/1 and they have also given an undertaking that they won't do the unlawful activities again in future. Above said trees (neem tree) are come under Non scheduled tree (exempted) as per forest rules.”

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025

¶39

4.We are concerned in this Writ Petition with Survey No.1835/1, Sithayagoundanpatti Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District ('land in question'). As per the counter filed by R4, the land belongs to the Tamil Nadu Boomidhana Board.

¶40

5.The felling of trees or branches appears to have been taken place in the adjoining land in Survey No.1835/1 and the Tahsildar states that branches of neem trees (non scheduled trees) were cut. This aligns with the counter filed by R6, wherein he confirms that branches of neem trees had been cut in the patta land.

¶41

6.We record the above and cautioning the private respondents

¶42

to ensure that there is no unnecessary felling of trees, even if non-scheduled, in or around the land in question, close this Writ Petition. No costs.

¶43

[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 22.10.2025

¶44

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

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.24638 of 2025

¶48

¶49