Disposed¶32

M.Thangavel v. The Assistant Engineer

Mandamus – Encroachment on water channel

Madras HC30 Oct 2025WP(MD)/30829/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ of mandamus; Article 226; encroachment removal; water channel; survey per revenue records; Water Resource Department Kuthiraiyaru Dam Division; Kuthirayar Dam; Tahsildar Palani; Andipatti Village; Dindigul District; notice dated 06.10.2025; well closure; channel restoration; coconut trees; disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations directing respondents 1 and 2 to hold a proper survey, clear all encroachments in the channel, restore the channel to its original condition, and close the petitioner's well encompassing the channel area; no costs awarded. ¶32

M.Thangavel Vs The Assistant Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.30829 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.30829 of 2025

M.Thangavel

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Department Kuthiraiyaru Dam Division, Kuthirayar Dam, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Palani,

Dindigul District.

3.N.Muthammal

... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to survey the land in S.No.7/1C2 as per the revenue records and remove all the encroachments in S.No.7/1A1 in pursuant to

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.30829 of 2025

¶19

the notice dated 06.10.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent in Andipatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh, Government Advocate for R1 & R2.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

2.The petitioner has title over S.Nos.7/1C2 and 7/1E3. He does

¶25

not dispute that a channel runs through S.No.7/1A1. It appears that a well dug by the petitioner has also encompassed S.No.7/1A1. The petitioner also appears to have planned coconut trees in S.No.7/1A1.

¶26

3.In these circumstances, the authority are not only having the right but duty to clear all the encroachments in the channel. Of course, before doing so, they would definitely hold a proper survey. The channel has to be restored to its original condition. The well dug by the petitioner

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.30829 of 2025

¶30

encompasses the channel area also, then the well has to be necessarily

¶31

closed and the original position will have to be restored.

¶32

4.With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.