Dismissed¶50

Asaraf Ali v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Jun 2026WP/18273/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: encroachment of water body; alternate land / alternate accommodation claimed by encroacher; rehabilitation of residential encroachers versus commercial occupants; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226, Constitution of India; Section 6 notice; Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905; Kiliyanur Village; survey No.134/1; Tharangambadi Taluk; Mayiladuthurai District; W.P.No.30216 of 2025 (First Bench order dated 24.03.2026); G.O. 540 district-level review committee; G.O. 40 district-level appellate committee; dismissal with no costs; implementation of earlier eviction order.

What did the court decide?

Only those encroachers who were residing on Government lands were given protection by the earlier order; the petitioners, except two, run commercial activities, so their claim for alternate land is legally untenable. ¶45

Asaraf Ali Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether encroachers residing on Government land (a water body) can, through a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226, compel the authorities to provide them alternate lands on par with those residing at survey No.134/1, Kiliyanur Village. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The petitioners, who are encroachers of a water body, are in the larger interest of the public liable to vacate and find an alternate place by themselves.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

¶45

Key takeaways

No encroacher can claim alternate accommodation as a matter of right before being evicted from a water body; entertaining any such claim would place a premium on illegal encroachment and impede the restoration of public resources.ratio¶50
The authorities are directed to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30216 of 2025 dated 24.03.2026 forthwith, without further delay.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Dr Justice G. Jayachandran, authoring judge; Mrs Justice N. Mala) — Writ Petition No. 18273 of 2026, decided 10-06-2026. Seventeen occupants of encroached Government land (a water body) at Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District — the same persons who were respondents 6 to 22 in a PIL (W.P.No.30216 of 2025) in which, by order dated 24.03.2026, the Court had directed officials to act upon a Section 6 notice under the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905 — sought a Writ of Mandamus (Article 226) for alternate lands on par with residents of survey No.134/1, Kiliyanur Village. Held: (i) the earlier rehabilitation protection covered only encroachers residing on the Government land; fifteen of the twenty-two encroachers ran commercial shops and, except two, the petitioners pursue commercial activities, rendering their claim legally untenable; (ii) no encroacher can claim alternate accommodation as a matter of right before eviction from a water body — entertaining such a claim would reward illegality and impede restoration of public resources — so encroachers of a water body must vacate and find alternate places themselves. Petition dismissed as devoid of merits; connected W.M.P.Nos. 19610 & 19611 of 2026 closed; no costs. Authorities directed to implement the order of 24.03.2026 in W.P.No.30216 of 2025 forthwith.

¶1

WP No. 18273 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶7

Writ Petition No. 18273 of 2026 and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos. 19610 & 19611 of 2026

¶9

Asaraf Ali

¶10

Jaibunisha

¶11

Shagul Hamed

¶12

Rahamath Kani

¶13

Faisur Rahuman

¶14

Suguna

¶15

Mohammed Ansari

¶16

Abdul Raseed

¶17

Mohammed Jakkiriya

¶18

10.Mohammed Imran

¶19

11.Ribayutheen

¶20

12.Iqbal 13.Fathima 14.Ashik Ali 15.Ramanathan 16.Manobala 17.Tahaa

¶21

..Petitioners

¶22

¶23

The District Collector Office of the District collector Office, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶24

The District Revenue Officer District -level Review committee under G.O. 540 Mayiladuthurai District.

¶25

__________ Page1 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 18273 of 2026

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer District -level Appellate Committee under G.O. 40 Mayiladuthurai District.

¶29

The Tahsildar Tharangambadi, Mayiladuthurai District

¶30

The Revenue Inspector Thiruvilayattam Circle, Tharangambadi Taluk, Tharangambadi

¶31

6. K.Chandrasekaran

¶32

..Respondents

¶33

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents to provide alternate lands to the petitioners similar on par with those residing at survey No.134/1 , Kiliyanur Village, Tharangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District .

¶34

For Petitioners: Mr.J.Pothiraj

¶35

For Respondents: Mr.B.Sivakollappan Government Advocate for R1 to R5

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶38

In a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Chandrasekar of Agaravallam,

¶39

Tharangambadi, this Court on 24.03.2026 had directed the official respondents to act upon the Section 6 notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Encroachment

¶40

Act, 1905, to the private respondents within a period of four weeks.

¶41

Page2 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

WP No. 18273 of 2026

¶44

2. In the said writ petition, the present encroachers were arrayed as respondents 6 to 22. The First Bench of this Court, in its aforesaid order dated 24.03.2026, recorded the plea of the respondents that out of twenty two encroachers, fifteen of them were running commercial shops, while seven were utilizing the premises for residential purposes. Insofar as the persons who were residing on the encroached land are concerned, the First Bench protected their interest by holding that they were entitled for rehabilitation. This being the factual position, the same respondents 6 to 22 as in the writ petition in W.P.No.30216 of 2025, are before this Court, claiming that since they are all residing on the encroached land, a Writ of Mandamus may be issued to the authorities to provide them alternate lands.

¶45

3. On a perusal of the earlier order of this Court mentioned above, it is clear that only those encroachers who were residing on Government lands were given protection. However, taking advantage of the said protection given to the residents on the encroached land, the petitioners, except two, who are running commercial activities have now come before this Court seeking alternate land, which this Court finds legally untenable. The notice issued for eviction itself discloses the nature of their enjoyment. The petitioners, who are encroachers of a water body, are in the larger interest of the public, liable to vacate and find an alternate place by themselves.

¶46

__________ Page3 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

WP No. 18273 of 2026

¶49

4. No encroacher can claim alternate accommodation as a matter of

¶50

right before being evicted from a water body. Any such claim, if entertained, would place a premium on an illegal encroachment and impede the restoration of public resources. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶51

5. The authorities are directed to implement the order passed by this

¶52

Court in W.P.No.30216 of 2025 dated 24.03.2026, forthwith, without further delay.

¶53

(Dr.G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 10-06-2026

¶54

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶55

rpl

¶56

¶57