Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

N.Janmgamareddi Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
N.Janmgamareddi Vs The District CollectorN.Janmgamareddi v. The District Collector

Dismissed¶42

N.Janmgamareddi v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Jul 2026WA/1762/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ; G. Arul Murugan, J.), 20.07.2026, WA No.1762 of 2026: intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against dismissal (04.09.2023) of patta claim in WP No.9891 of 2018. Land in S.No.46 recorded in the 'A' Register as 'Road poromboke'; Court held encroachment impossible on road poromboke land and that appellants, though claiming occupation and payment of charges since 1962, produced no supporting documents; appeal dismissed without costs, connected CMPs closed; Single Judge's directions for field inspection and eviction stand. Search terms: patta, poromboke, encroachment, government land, assignment, 'A' Register, eviction, Erode, Anthiyur, Letters Patent Clause 15, writ appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

From the 'A' Register, S.No.46 is classified as 'Road poromboke'; when an area is classified as 'road poromboke', there cannot be any encroachment upon it.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants (writ petitioners), who claim to have been in enjoyment of the Government land in S.No.46 since 1962 while paying necessary charges, are entitled to grant of patta. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellants failed to produce any document in support of their claim; the learned Single Judge therefore committed no error in dismissing the writ petition, and the writ appeal, being bereft of materials and substance, was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ratio / Principle

From the 'A' Register, S.No.46 is classified as 'Road poromboke'; when an area is classified as 'road poromboke', there cannot be any encroachment upon it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No.1762 of 2026) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, High Court of Judicature at Madras (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J.; judgment by the Chief Justice), decided 20.07.2026 — directed against the order dated 04.09.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP No.9891 of 2018 dismissing the appellants' claim for patta over Government land in S.No.46 and directing field inspection and eviction of encroachers within four weeks. Appellants claimed enjoyment of the land since 1962 with payment of necessary charges; the respondents relied on the 'A' Register showing S.No.46 as 'Road Poromboke'. Held (ratio): from the 'A' Register, S.No.46 is classified as 'Road poromboke', and when an area is so classified there cannot be any encroachment; the appellants produced no document in support of their claim, hence the learned Single Judge committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. Writ appeal dismissed, bereft of materials and substance; no order as to costs; CMP Nos.17196 and 171797 of 2026 closed. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

A

WA No.1762 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.07.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN

WA No.1762 of 2026

1.N.Janmgamareddi

2.J.Chandrasekaran

both residing at Thottikinaru, Komarayanur Village, Anthiyur Tk, Erode Dist. : Appellants

Versus

1.The District Collector Erode, Erode Dist 638 011

2.The District Revenue Divisional Officer Erode 638 011

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Gobchettipalayam 638 452

4.The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar, Anthiyur Tk, Erode Dist 638 501

5.The Inspector of Land Revenue Ammapet, Salem 636 003. : Respondents

Page 1 of 6

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

WA No.1762 of 2026

Prayer: Appeal filed against the order dated 04.09.2023 in WP No. 9891 of 2018.

For Appellants : Ms.R.Priyadharshini For Respondents : Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government Advocate

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This writ appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,

assails the order dated 04.09.2023 passed in WP No.9891 of 2018; whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the claim made by the appellants for patta, by passing the following order:

“3. Hence, the petitioners are encroachers and the extent of encroachment is about 1.47.5 Hectares, which is about 3.6 Acres. In the event of allowing the encroachment to the larger extent in respect of the Government land, the same would cause prejudice to the interest of the public. Assignment of Government Lands are to be made scrupulously following the terms and conditions stipulated under the welfare scheme and to the land less poor people. Eligibility criteria fixed under the scheme is to be followed even for assignment of the land.

Page 2 of 6

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

WA No.1762 of 2026

4. However, in the present case, the petitioners have encroached the Government lands extending 3.6 acres. Thus, the order of rejection issued by the District Collector, Erode is in consonance with the principles and there is no infirmity as such. The respondents are directed to conduct field inspection and initiate action to evict the encroachers and retain the Government land for public usage in the manner contemplated.

The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Learned Counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submitted that the appellants are enjoying the said property since 1962 onwards and they have been paying necessary charges for the same. Therefore, learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the “A” Register, entire land situated in S.No.46 is shown as ‘Road Poromboke’. Therefore, there is no question of grant of patta to the appellants and that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

Page 3 of 6

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

records.

WA No.1762 of 2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.

From the ‘A’ Register, it is seen that the S.No.46 is classified as ‘Road poromboke’. When an area is classified as ‘road poromboke’, there cannot be any encroachment. The appellants have failed to produce any document in support of their claim. Learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal, being bereft of materials and substance, is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.17196 and 171797 of 2026 are closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 20.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

Page 4 of 6

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

WA No.1762 of 2026

To

1.The District Collector Erode, Erode Dist 638 011

2.The District Revenue Divisional Officer Erode 638 011

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer Gobchettipalayam 638 452

4.The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode Dist 638 501

5.The Inspector of Land Revenue Ammapet, Salem 636 003.

Page 5 of 6

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

WA No.1762 of 2026

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(tar)

WA No.1762 of 2026

20.07.2026

Page 6 of 6

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appellants (writ petitioners), who claim to have been in enjoyment of the Government land in S.No.46 since 1962 while paying necessary charges, are entitled to grant of patta.¶27
The court held
The appellants failed to produce any document in support of their claim; the learned Single Judge therefore committed no error in dismissing the writ petition, and the writ appeal, being bereft of materials and substance, was dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶42
2.
Whether land in S.No.46, classified as 'Road poromboke' in the 'A' Register, can be the subject of patta assignment to private parties, and whether such classification justifies rejection of the claim.medium confidence¶42
The court held
From the 'A' Register, S.No.46 is classified as 'Road poromboke'; when an area is classified as 'road poromboke', there cannot be any encroachment upon it.ratio¶42

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.9891 of 2018 dated 04.09.2023 dismissing the appellants'/writ petitioners' claim for patta, holding them to be encroachers of about 3.6 acres of Government land, and directing field inspection and eviction of encroachers within four weeks.¶22
High Court of Judicature at Madras (learned Single Judge) · 04.09.2023
Prior proceeding
Writ petition WP No.9891 of 2018 was filed by the present appellants (as writ petitioners) claiming patta; the learned Single Judge dismissed that claim.¶27
Prior proceeding
Earlier, the District Collector, Erode had issued an order rejecting the claim; the quoted order of the learned Single Judge records that this rejection was 'in consonance with the principles'.¶32
Prior proceeding
By the impugned order, the respondents were directed to conduct field inspection and evict the encroachers, retaining the Government land for public usage, the exercise to be completed within four weeks.¶32
Prior proceeding
The completion of the field-inspection/eviction exercise was directed to be done within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the Single Judge's order.¶33

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
N.Janmgamareddi¶10
Ms.R.Priyadharshini
appellant
J.Chandrasekaran¶11
Ms.R.Priyadharshini
respondent
The District Collector Erode, Erode Dist 638 011¶14
Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government Advocate
respondent
The District Revenue Divisional Officer Erode 638 011¶15
Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government Advocate
respondent
The Revenue Divisional Officer Gobchettipalayam 638 452¶16
Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government Advocate
respondent
The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar, Anthiyur Tk, Erode Dist 638 501¶17
Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government Advocate
respondent
The Inspector of Land Revenue Ammapet, Salem 636 003.¶18
Mr.M.Guruprasad, Government Advocate

Coram

AI extract

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikariauthor¶5
G. Arul Muruganmember¶8

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 20 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 30 Jun 2026
Case no.: WA/1762/2026
CNR: HCMA010945002025
Bench: G.arul Murugan
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.arul Murugan

Sub Postmaster (H.S.G.-1) Vs B. Boppaya
17 Jul 2026
M.Natarajan Vs The District Collector
17 Jul 2026
R.Kesavan Vs The State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Sipcot
17 Jul 2026
Das Hunnykumar Pramodkumar Vs The Dean
20 Jul 2026
Ameen R.S Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
20 Jul 2026
Mrs. Susan John Vs the Secretary to Government
20 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

N.Janmgamareddi v. The District Collector, WA/1762/2026 (MAD), decided on 20 July 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.9891 of 2018 dated 04.09.2023 dismissing the appellants'/writ petitioners' claim for patta, holding them to be encroachers of about 3.6 acres of Government land, and directing field inspection and eviction of encroachers within four weeks.High Court of Judicature at Madras (learned Single Judge) · 04.09.2023
Writ petition WP No.9891 of 2018 was filed by the present appellants (as writ petitioners) claiming patta; the learned Single Judge dismissed that claim.
Earlier, the District Collector, Erode had issued an order rejecting the claim; the quoted order of the learned Single Judge records that this rejection was 'in consonance with the principles'.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and G. Arul Murugan

Parties & counsel