Disposed¶32

R.Abirami v. The District Collector

Madras HC30 Oct 2025WP(MD)/30914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land Encroachment Act Section 6; encroachment of water body; no patta; writ of certiorari under Article 226; impugned Tahsildar order Na.Ka.No.1109/2025/A9 dated 24.10.2025; order kept in abeyance for eight months; undertaking/affidavit to vacate within two weeks; Pudukkottai; Manamelkudi Taluk; Aranthangi; R.Abirami v. District Collector; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.30914 of 2025; disposed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order kept in abeyance for eight months, conditional on the petitioner filing the undertaking/affidavit agreeing to vacate before the third respondent within two weeks; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the third respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act in Na.Ka.No.1109/2025/A9 is liable to be quashed.

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioner fairly admitted that she has no right over the land in question, that no patta has been issued in her favour, and that she has encroached upon a water body, seeking only reasonable time to vacate.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

On the petitioner's undertaking to file an affidavit agreeing to vacate, the court directed the third respondent to keep the impugned order in abeyance for a period of eight months; the concession will not be available if the undertaking is not filed before the third respondent within two weeks.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.24121 of 2025) was closed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari against a Tahsildar's order dated 24.10.2025 (Na.Ka.No.1109/2025/A9) passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act. The petitioner admitted having no right over the land, no patta in her favour, and having encroached upon a water body, seeking only reasonable time to vacate. Accepting her undertaking to file an affidavit agreeing to vacate, the Division Bench (G.R.Swaminathan and B.Pugalendhi, JJ.) directed the Tahsildar to keep the impugned order in abeyance for exactly eight months, making the concession conditional on the undertaking being filed within two weeks, failing which the concession would not be available. Writ petition disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.30914 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.30914 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.24121 of 2025

R.Abirami

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, O/o The District Collector, Pudukkottai.

¶13

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukottai.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar,

¶15

O/o The Tahsildar, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶16

4.The Block Development Officer, Manamelkudi Union, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.30914 of 2025

¶20

Prayer:

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1109/2025/A9, dated 24.10.2025 and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj

¶23

For Respondents :Mr.C.Venkateshkumar Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act. The petitioner fairly admits that she does not have any right over the land in question. No patta has been issued in his favour. The petitioner has encroached upon a water body. They only seek reasonable time to vacate. The petitioner also undertakes to file an affidavit agreeing to vacate at the end of the said period.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid undertaking given by the petitioner, we direct the third respondent to keep the impugned order in abeyance exactly for a

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.30914 of 2025

¶31

period of eight months. This concession will not be available to the writ petitioner if the undertaking is not filed before the third respondent within a period of two weeks.

¶32