Dismissed¶46

M.Rengarasu v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25126/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Centre construction restraint; clan deity temple; Arulmigu/A.M.Draupadi Amman Temple; S.F.No.811/28 Narangiyanpatti Village Kulathur Taluk Pudukkottai; Sarkar Poromboke encroachment; Field Measurement Book; Annaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam - II 2025-26 administrative sanction; ICDS; Block Development Officer Kunnanadar Kovil Union; representation dated 22.08.2025; proceedings dated 14.07.2025; Article 226 mandamus dismissed; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth; Justice C. Kumarappan; 22.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no merit in the writ petition: the Anganwadi Centre is not a new addition but a reconstruction of an existing centre at the same location; an Anganwadi centre is a public necessity and its reconstruction cannot be stalled on mere whims and fancies. ¶43

M.Rengarasu Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should issue restraining the respondents from constructing an Anganwadi Centre or any construction in S.F.No.811/28, Narangiyanpatti Village, Minnathur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, where the petitioner's clan deity A/M.Draupadi Amman Temple is situated, and alternatively directing the respondents to build the Anganwadi Centre on other poramboke land in the village by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2025.

¶23

Court's answer

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Photographs of the temple produced by the parties do not indicate that the temple is in active use.

¶43

Key takeaways

On the revenue records, S.No.811/28 houses the temple, a palvadi and a mud road; there is a distance of more than 50 meters between the temple and the location of the Anganwadi centre; consequently the temple is an encroachment on a Sarkar Poromboke.ratio¶36
The proceedings dated 14.07.2025 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner do not advance the petitioner's case in any way.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Dr. Anita Sumanth & C. Kumarappan, JJ.; order per Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.; 22.09.2025) sought to forbid construction of an Anganwadi Centre in S.F.No.811/28, Narangiyanpatti Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, on the ground that the petitioner's clan deity Arulmigu Draupadi Amman Temple stands there, with an alternative prayer to relocate the centre to other poramboke land per representation dated 22.08.2025. Held, dismissing the petition with no costs and closing the connected W.M.P.(MD)No.19715 of 2025: the centre replaces an existing dilapidated Anganwadi at the same location and carries administrative sanction under Annaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam - II 2025-26, catering to children up to six years, pregnant women and lactating mothers; it is a public necessity whose reconstruction cannot be stalled on mere whims and fancies. Revenue records show S.No.811/28 (20 acres) is Sarkar Poromboke housing the temple, a palvadi and a mud road, with over 50 meters between temple and site, making the temple an encroachment; photographs do not show the temple in active use; proceedings dated 14.07.2025 did not advance the petitioner's case. No precedent was cited or decided.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.25126 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.25126 of 2025 & W.M.P.(MD)No.19715 of 2025

M.Rengarasu

... Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Pudukkotai District.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o.District Revenue Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Office, Pudukkottai & District.

¶13

4.The Block Development Officer, O/o.Block Development Office, Kunnanadar Kovil Union, Kunnanadar Kovil, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

5.The District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS), Pudukkottai & District.

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.25126 of 2025

¶18

6.The Tahsildhar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to build up an Anganwadi Centre or any kind of construction in S.F.No. 811/28 situated at Narangiyanpatti Village, Minnathur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, where situates the petitioner's clan deity of A/M.Draupadi Amman Temple and further direct the respondents to take steps to build an Anganwadi Centre alternatively in any other Poramboke land available in Narangiyanpatti Village by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2025 within a time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Karthika For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar (R1 to R6) Government Pleader ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner seeks a mandamus forbearing the respondents from building an Anganwadi centre or engaging in any other kind of

¶24

2/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.25126 of 2025

¶27

construction in S.F.No.811/28 at Narangiyanpatti Village, Minnathur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District (property / property in question).

¶28

According to the petitioner, represented by Ms.R.Karthika, a

¶29

temple of Arulmigu Draupadi Amman (temple) stands in that property and the proposed construction would come in the way of the celebration of the temple festivals.

¶30

The fourth respondent, Block Development Officer has filed a counter asserting that firstly the temple is hardly in use and there have been no Poojas or other religious activities there, for more than 10 years. Secondly, the proposed Anganwadi Centre is to be constructed in place of an existing Anganwadi Centre, which is dilapidated. Hence, it is not a new proposal.

¶31

Thirdly, Administrative sanction for the proposed Angawadi centre has been obtained under the Annaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam - II 2025-26 for Pudukkottai District, that provides for various welfare schemes for that locality. The proposal for reconstruction of the Anganwadi centre is long overdue and is proposed to be one of the largest in Pudukkottai District, intending to cater to children upto six

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.25126 of 2025

¶35

years, pregnant women and lactating mothers. Since there are several persons in the aforesaid demographic in that area, it is an essential public project.

¶36

As far as revenue records are concerned, S.No.811/28 measures 20 acres, and houses the temple, a palvadi and a mud road. In any event, there is a distance of more than 50 meters between the temple and the location of the Anganwadi centre. Hence, the temple is an encroachment on a Sarkar Poromboke.

¶37

To substantiate the above submissions, the Field Measurement Book (FMB) and other revenue records have been produced by Mr.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader for the respondents. While the petitioner does not dispute any of the above facts, including the classification of the land and the distance between the Anganwadi centre and the temple, learned counsel would only reiterate time and again that there are other parcels of land where the Anganwadi Centre could be re-located.

¶38

We are of the considered view that there is no merit in this

¶39

Writ Petition. Admittedly, the Anganwadi centre is not a new addition

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.25126 of 2025

¶43

and there was an Anganwadi centre even previously in the same location which is being reconstructed. An Anganwadi centre is a public necessity and the reconstruction cannot be stalled on mere whims and fancies. Photographs of the temple have been produced by the parties, that do not indicate that the temple is in active use.

¶44