Disposed¶34

Eswari v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Sept 2025WP(MD)/25778/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment on water body; demolition of temples, hall, water tank and syntax tank deferred until encroachers vacate; Kaliamman temple mentioned in UDR protected, Sakthi Vinayagar temple not protected; five-month vacation period per order dated 04.09.2025 in W.P.(MD) No. 23980 of 2025 (Venkadasamy); representation dated 15.09.2025; Writ of Mandamus under Article 226; W.P.(MD)No.25778 of 2025, Madurai Bench, decision 18.09.2025; G.R.Swaminathan and B.Pugalandhi JJ.; Virudhunagar / Sivakasi; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Partial relief: authorities to demolish the petition-mentioned water tank and syntax tank only after the encroachers vacate; protection limited to the Kaliamman temple mentioned in UDR, with no such protection for the Sakthi Vinayagar temple; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.20176 of 2025) closed.

Eswari Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 2 and 3 should be forbidden from demolishing the Kaliamman Kovil, Sakthi Vinayagar Kovil, hall, water tank and syntax tank situated in survey No.329, M.Duraisamypuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, while the petitioner and other encroachers remain in occupation of the petition-mentioned water body.

¶16

Court's answer

The writ petitioner is in occupation of a water body and her status as an encroacher is not in doubt; she had already been granted five months to vacate.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The authorities are directed to demolish the petition-mentioned water tank and syntax tank only after the encroachers vacate the petition-mentioned water body.

¶34

Key takeaways

While the Kaliamman temple which is mentioned in UDR may be protected, the same protection need not be given to the Sakthi Vinayagar temple.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 by Eswari, an acknowledged encroacher occupying a water body in survey no. 329, M.Duraisamypuram Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, seeking restraint on demolition of the Kaliamman Kovil, Sakthi Vinayagar Kovil, hall, water tank and syntax tank. She had already been granted five months to vacate by the order dated 04.09.2025 in W.P.(MD) No. 23980 of 2025 (Venkadasamy Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar). The court found her request reasonable and directed that the water tank and syntax tank be demolished only after the encroachers vacate; protection was confined to the Kaliamman temple mentioned in UDR, the Sakthi Vinayagar temple being expressly excluded from such protection. Disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.25778 OF 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.25778 of 2025 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.20176 of 2025

Eswari

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

The Secretary, Mamsapuram Village Panchayat, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

Murugan ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 herein from demolishing the Kaliamman Kovil, Sakthi Vinayagar Kovil, Hall, Water Tank and Syntax tank situated in survey No.329, M.Duraisamypuram Village, Sivakasi Town,

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

2 W.P.(MD)NO.25778 OF 2025

¶20

Virudhunagar District in view of the representation dated 15.09.2025.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader for R-1 & R-3.

¶22

Mr.M.Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader for R-2.

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner

¶26

and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶27

The writ petitioner is in occupation of a water body. That she

¶28

is an encroacher is not in doubt. She has been granted five months time to vacate vide order dated 04.09.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.

¶29

23980 of 2025(Venkadasamy Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar) . The only request made by the petitioner is that till she and other encroachers vacate, the petition-mentioned water tank and syntax tank need not be demolished. Her contention is that if the

¶30

2/4

¶31

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

¶32

3 W.P.(MD)NO.25778 OF 2025

¶33

petition-mentioned water tank is demolished now itself, the occupants will be left without any source of water.

¶34

We find this request to be resasonable. We therefore direct the authorities to demolish the petition-mentioned water tank and syntax tank only, after the encroachers vacate the petition-mentioned water body. We also make it clear that while Kaliamman temple which is mentioned in UDR may be protected, the same protection need not be given to Sakthi Vinayagar temple. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (B.PUGALENDHI, J.)

¶36

18^th September 2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

PMU

¶38

3/4

¶39

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

¶40