Disposed

Chandra Sekaran v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Apr 2026WP/15098/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking removal of encroachments by private respondents on a Vari Poramboke waterbody in S.F.Nos.104 and 105 at Shoolagiri Village. The State undertook to remove identified encroachments after due process; the court directed action within six weeks and declined directions regarding grama natham land.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to remove waterbody encroachments after due process, preferably within six weeks.

Chandra Sekaran Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶8

Chandra Sekaran S/o.P.Chinnavedi Krishnapalayam, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri-635 117.

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The District Collector Krishnagiri District.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar Shoolagiri Taluk, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶13

3.The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Upper Pennayar Basin Division, Hosur.

¶14

4.The Assistant Engineer Water Resources Department Upper Pennayar Basin Division, Hosur.

¶15

_______________ Page 1 of 7_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶18

5.Chinnaiyyan S/o.Munisamy

¶19

6.Nagaraj S/o.Kannappan

¶20

7.Jeyaraman S/o.Rajappa

¶21

8.Murugesan S/o.Rajappa

¶22

9.Mani

¶23

S/o.Rajappa

¶24

10.Nagaraj

¶25

S/o.Arunachalam

¶26

11.Duraisamy

¶27

S/o.Venkatesh

¶28

12.Amaravathi S/o.Govindan

¶29

13.Varadaraj S/o.Chinnathangam

¶30

14.Raman

¶31

S/o.Vediyappan

¶32

15.Lakshmanan S/o.Vediyappan

¶33

16.Vediyappan S/o.Chinnavedi

¶34

17.Munisamy S/o.Chinnavedi

¶35

18.Nagaraj

¶36

S/o.Chinnavedi

¶37

_______________ Page 2 of 7_

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶40

19.Krishnan

¶41

S/o.Chinnavedi

¶42

20.Munisamy @ Periyathambi S/o.Periyavedi

¶43

Respondents 5 to 20 residing at, Shoolagiri Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Hosur, Krishnagiri District- 635117.

¶44

Respondents

¶45

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein to remove the encroachments made by respondents 5-20 in the lands in S.F.Nos.99/1, 104 and 105 situated in Shoolagiri Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District as per the report of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.420/2025/A1 dated 08.03.2025 within the time period to be stipulated by this Hon’ble court.

¶46

For Petitioner: Mr.Siddarth Sridhar

¶47

For Respondents: Mr. K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R1 to R4

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶50

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to remove the encroachments made by respondent Nos.5 to 20 in the lands in S.F.Nos.99/1, 104 and 105 situated in Shoolagiri Village, Shoolagiri

¶51

_______________ Page 3 of 7_

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶54

Taluk, Krishnagiri District as per the report of the second respondent dated 8.3.2025.

¶55

The case of the petitioner is that, as per the revenue records, S.F.No.99/1 is classified as Grama Natham and S.F.Nos.104 and 105 are classified as Vari Poramboke (waterbody). The private respondents have encroached upon the said lands. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the District Collector on 23.12.2024 seeking action for removal of encroachments made by the private respondents. Pursuant to the representation, the Tahsildar, by a communication dated 8.3.2025, directed respondents 3 and 4 to remove the private respondents from the subject lands. Despite the above said proceedings, no effective action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶56

From the records, it is seen that only Survey Nos.104 and 105 are waterbody. A survey has been conducted by the Tahsildar, Soolagiri and encroachers have been identified and list has also been sent to the Water Resources Department to initiate action against the encroachers.

¶57

_______________ Page 4 of 7_

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶60

At this juncture, learned State counsel submitted that the encroachments identified on the waterbody shall be removed after following due process of law.

¶61

Recording the statement made by learned State counsel, we

¶62

dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the encroachments made on the waterbody in question, after following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the petitioner has restricted his prayer only with regard to encroachments on water body in S.F.Nos.104 and 105, we are not issuing any direction in respect of S.F.No.99/1, which is classified as grama natham.

¶63

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

¶65

21.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶66

_______________ Page 5 of 7_

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶69

To:

¶70

1.The District Collector Krishnagiri District.

¶71

2.The Tahsildar Shoolagiri Taluk, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶72

3.The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Upper Pennayar Basin Division, Hosur.

¶73

4.The Assistant Engineer Water Resources Department Upper Pennayar Basin Division, Hosur.

¶74

_______________ Page 6 of 7_

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

¶77

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr

W.P.No.15098 of 2026

21.04.2026

_______________ Page 7 of 7_

¶82

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

Chandra Sekaran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Sekaran 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

R.Girirajan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its, Secretaty to Government

The Superintending Engineer Vs L R Palanisamy

Shobitha Raajendira Vs the Secretary

P.Sundera Vadivel Vs The Chief Electoral Officer

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Harikrishna R.R.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Parthiban Prashanth a