Dismissed

Suresh v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Oct 2025WP(MD)/29460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A villager sought mandamus directing police protection to implement an order of the District Collector on canal water-sharing and appointment of a commissioner to supervise implementation. The Court held the petition misconceived for non-disclosure of material facts and non-joinder of necessary parties, dismissed it, and directed that the pending civil suit decide the inter-se water dispute.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed with costs and Rs.25,000 imposed on petitioner payable to High Court Legal Services Authority; civil suit directed to conclude within six months.

Suresh Vs The District Collector — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶8

Suresh ... Petitioner

¶9

/Vs./

¶10

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tenkasi District.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, DSP Office Puliangudi, Tenkasi District.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Puliangudi, Tenkasi District.

¶14

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tenkasi District.

¶15

The Executive Engineer (PWD), Highways Department, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkai District.

¶16

1/9

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶19

The Executive Engineer, Chittaru Irrigation Division, Tenkasi District.

¶20

The President, Panchayat Office Punnayapuram, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶21

Forest Ranger, Kadayanallur Zone, Tenkasi District.

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents no 2,3,4,5 herein to provide immediate and adequate police protection to implement the Earlier this Court order dated 11.01.2024 and District Collector Order dated 22.07.2023 and kindly request to appoint a commissioner/ special officer to supervise implementation and to file a compliance report before this Court within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Danush Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar (R1 & R6 to R9) Government Pleader Mr.P.Kottaichamy (R2 to R5) Government Advocate Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadhurai (for intervener)

¶25

2/9

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

The present petition has been filed by a resident of Kadayankulam Taluk, Tenkasi District seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to provide police protection for the implementation of order of writ Court dated 11.01.2024 and order of the District Collector dated 22.07.2023, and appoint the Commissioner to oversee such implementation.

¶31

2.We are of the view that this writ petition is misconceived and also suffers from non-disclosure of material facts. The history to the matter has been captured by this Court in order dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.(MD) No.28497 of 2023.

¶32

There has been an on-going tussle between the ayacutdars of the villagers in Tenkasi District, including Madanservai Kulam and Kalingankulam dating back several decades leading to litigation on several fronts. O.S.No.333 of 1986 had been filed by the ayacutdars of

¶33

3/9

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶36

Kalingankulam village arraying the Government Officials as defendants, that was decreed on 16.09.1991. An appeal was filed by the Government in A.S.No.95 of 1995 that was dismissed by the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi.

¶37

4.O.S.No.196 of 1999 had been filed by the ayacutdars of Kalingankulam village on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil that had been dismissed for default on 02.01.2006.

¶38

5.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14218 of 2012 had been filed relating to a complaint filed by the petitioner about the inadequacy of water supplied to Kalingankulam village, that was caused by the conscious blockage of the canal by the villagers of the neighbouring villages. That petition was disposed on 09.10.2012 directing the District Collector, Tirunelveli to pass orders on the representation of the villagers on the aspect of sharing of water.

¶39

This paved the way for orders to be passed by the District Collector who had directed the Divisional Engineer, Highways to remove the obstruction to the flow of water, questioning which the neighbouring villages filed W.P.(MD)No.11376 of 2014, that came to be allowed on

¶40

4/9

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶43

10.11.2022 directing the District Collector to pass appropriate orders after considering the submissions of all the villagers concerned, and fixing a time frame for the same.

¶44

Thereafter, the District Collector of Tenkasi caused enquiry and passed orders on 22.07.2023, based upon the input received from the officials as well as ayacutdars, directing the sharing of water in the ratio 1:9.70.

¶45

While disposing the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Judge has given his opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the ratio that has been fixed by the District Collector. However, in conclusion, he declines to interfere on the ground that the ayacutdars in those villages hold certain customary rights as well as rights that have been granted by the civil Court.

¶46

He notes that the tussle between the various villagers in sharing of water and the obstruction caused from time to time by their neighbours, has resulted in restricted availability of water. Hence, in conclusion, he directs the parties to approach the Civil Court.

¶47

Undoubtedly, an appropriate sharing ratio can be arrived at

¶48

5/9

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶51

only after taking note of the contentions of all affected parties and consideration of evidence adduced by them. In fact, O.S.No.1034 of 2025 has also been filed by one of the villagers, a petitioner in WP(MD)No.28497 of 2023, before the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi. The respondents in the writ petition and others have been arrayed as defendants and are stated to be contesting the suit. The proper relief to which the parties are entitled must then be gone into in that suit and ultimately decided, once and for all, after the voices of all the affected and interested parties are taken note of.

¶52

In such circumstances, we find this writ petition to be misconceived. Firstly, the petitioner in WP(MD)No.28497 of 2023, who is both a proper and necessary party, has not been arrayed in this writ petition. Secondly, despite having full knowledge of the pendency of O.S.No.1034 of 2025, there is no disclosure about the same in the writ affidavit.

¶53

Instead, the prayer is for a mandamus simplicitor, for implementation of the order of the District Collector notwithstanding that that order has been specifically disavowed by the writ court.

¶54

6/9

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶57

For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this writ petition reiterating the directions in the writ petition that the civil Court is the appropriate forum to decide the dispute inter se the parties. Suffice it to say that the dispute must be decided in a timely fashion. For the said purpose, we request the learned Principal District Judge, Tenkasi to complete the trial and render a judgment within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

On account of non-disclosure and suppression of material facts, the petitioner is put to terms and will remit a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority attached to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court within a period of two (2) weeks from date of receipt of this order.

¶59

This Writ petition stands dismissed in above terms, with

¶60

costs.

¶61

[A.S.M.J.,] [C.K.J.,] 17.10.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes vs/sm

¶62

7/9

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶65

¶66

The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tenkasi District.

¶67

The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

¶68

The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, DSP Office Puliangudi, Tenkasi District.

¶69

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Puliangudi, Tenkasi District.

¶70

The Sub Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tenkasi District.

¶71

The Executive Engineer (PWD), Highways Department, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkai District.

¶72

The Executive Engineer, Chittaru Irrigation Division, Tenkasi District.

¶73

The President, Panchayat Office Punnayapuram, Kadayanallurtaluk, Tenkasi District.

¶74

Forest Ranger, Kadayanallur Zone, Tenkasi District.

¶75

8/9

¶76

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

¶77

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶78

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶79

vs/sm

¶80

W.P.(MD)No.29460 of 2025

¶81

Dated: 17.10.2025

¶82

9/9

¶83

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

Suresh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. The District Collector

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

U.Rajagopal Vs The District Collector

R.Senthil Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Kavalair Kudumba Nala Arakkatalai Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Dr.M.Devaki Vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.Sakkarai Vs The Principal Chief

D.Sampath Kannan Vs The District Collector / The Chairman