Disposed¶32

Kadambavanam R v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Oct 2025WP(MD)/29415/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: encroachment removal; poramboke land; water body classification; survey by Tahsildar; notice and due opportunity to encroachers; four-month compliance timeline; mandamus under Article 226; V.Nangur Village; Kariapatti Taluk; Virudhunagar District; S.No.179; District Collector; Block Development Officer; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.29415 of 2025; disposed with directions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the second respondent (Tahsildar) to conduct a survey of S.No.179 after notice to all interested persons and encroachers, to remove any encroachments found in the water body after giving encroachers due opportunity, and to clear all encroachments within four months of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents (1 to 3) should be directed by mandamus to remove the house encroachments made in S.No.179 of V.Nangur Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, so that the villagers can use the poramboke land as classified in the revenue records.

¶20

Court's answer

Proceeding on the learned Government Advocate's confirmation given on instructions, the Court treated S.No.179 as land classified as water body.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the second respondent (Tahsildar) to conduct a survey, giving prior notice to all interested persons and encroachers; if the survey indicates encroachments in the water body, the same are to be removed.

¶31

Key takeaways

All encroachers are to be put on notice and given due opportunity before removal action.ratio¶31
All encroachments must be cleared within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.29415 of 2025 (G.R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi, JJ.), decided 23.10.2025 — Encroachment over poramboke/water body land — Petitioner, a resident of V.Nangur Village, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 (District Collector, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer) to remove house encroachments in S.No.179, V.Nangur Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, so that villagers may use the poramboke land as classified in revenue records — Learned Government Advocate confirmed on instructions that S.No.179 is classified as water body — Held: second respondent (Tahsildar) directed to conduct a survey after giving notice to all interested persons and encroachers; if the survey indicates encroachments in the water body, the same shall be removed; all encroachers to be put on notice and given due opportunity; all encroachments to be cleared within four months from receipt of a copy of the order — Writ petition disposed of. No costs. Notice to private respondents dispensed with.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.29415 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.29415 of 2025

R.Kadambavanam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer, Kariapatti Block, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.Kani

¶14

5.Ayyammal

¶15

6.Muniyasamy ... Respondents

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.29415 of 2025

¶19

Prayer:

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1 to 3 respondents to remove the house encroachment made in S. No.179 in V. Nangur Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District to enable the Village people to use the poramboke land as classified in the Revenue records.

¶21

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Kishore Kumar

¶22

For Respondents :Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate for R1 to R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for R1 to R3. Issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶25

The petitioner is a resident of V.Nangur Village. He alleges that in the petition-mentioned survey numbers, there are encroachments.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate on instructions confirms that S.No.179 has been classified as water body.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.29415 of 2025

¶30

In this view of the matter, we direct the second respondent to

¶31

conduct survey. Notice shall be given to all the interested persons & encroachers before conducting survey. If the survey results indicate that there are encroachments in the water body, the same shall be removed. All the encroachers shall not only be put on notice but also given due opportunity. All the encroachments shall be cleared within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶33

[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 23.10.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No rmi

¶34

To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.

¶35

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

3.The Block Development Officer, Kariapatti Block, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.29415 of 2025

¶40

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

and

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

rmi

W.P(MD)No.29415 of 2025

¶45

23.10.2025

¶46

4/4

¶47

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

Kadambavanam R v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadambavanam R v. The District Collector

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

K.K.Mayilsamy Vs The District Collector

Anbu.K Vs The District Collector

M.Subramaniyan Vs Selvam, B.Sc.B.L.

M.Sanjaygandhi Vs The District Collector/Monitory Committee

M.Alagar Vs the District Collector

Iliyas Vs the District Collector