Disposed

Venkatachlam v. The Block Development Officer

Madras HC17 Jul 2026WP/1978/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Block Development Officer's order permitting a private respondent to lay a water pipeline along a public road. Respondents clarified the permission did not cover the petitioner's patta lands. The Court disposed of the writ petition restraining laying of the pipeline through those lands and permitting a fresh permission application with hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent restrained from laying water pipeline through petitioner's lands (Survey Nos.237/6 and 236/9C); liberty to seek fresh permission with hearing to petitioner; no costs.

Venkatachlam Vs The Block Development Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.1978 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.No.1978 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.2073 & 2074 of 2026

¶8

Venkatachalam S/o.Kuppannagounder

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

The Block Development Officer Office of the Block Development Office Mallasamuthiram Block Namakkal District.

¶12

R.Senthilkumar S/o.Rajamanickam … Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.107/2024/T4 dated 14.01.2026 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel, for R1 Mr.S.Senthil, for R2

¶15

¶16

Page Nos.1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.1978 of 2026

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner challenges the order dated 14.01.2026 issued by the first respondent, whereby permission was granted to the second respondent to lay a water pipeline from Survey No.93/10 to Survey No.232/2, along the road belonging to the first respondent.

¶21

The petitioner contends that, pursuant to the impugned order, the second respondent is attempting to lay the water pipeline through the petitioner’s patta lands bearing Survey Nos.237/6 and 236/9C.

¶22

The learned State Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the impugned order does not refer to the petitioner’s survey numbers. According to them, the permission granted is confined only to laying the water pipeline from Survey No.93/10 to Survey No.232/2 along the road belonging to the first respondent. The second respondent has also categorically stated that the pipeline will be laid only along the said road and not through the petitioner’s lands.

¶23

Page Nos.2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.1978 of 2026

¶26

In view of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of by

¶27

directing the second respondent not to lay the water pipeline through the petitioner’s lands bearing Survey Nos.237/6 and 236/9C. If the second respondent intends to lay the water pipeline through the said lands, it is open to him to approach the first respondent and seek appropriate permission in accordance with law. On such application being made, the first respondent shall consider the same after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

17.07.2026

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

To The Block Development Officer Office of the Block Development Office Mallasamuthiram Block Namakkal District.

¶32

Page Nos.3/4

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.1978 of 2026

¶35

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,

¶36

¶37

W.P.No.1978 of 2026

¶38

17.07.2026

¶39

Page Nos.4/4

¶40

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

Venkatachlam v. The Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachlam v. The Block Development Officer

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

Rajasekar Vs The District Collector

A.Sundaram Vs the District Collector

R.Krishnamurthy Vs The Collector

M/s Chaussooures New Stepp Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Dbk Acc)

M/S.Balaji Trading Company Vs The Commissioner of Customs (Imports)

Ramkumar Vs the District Collector / the Appellate Authority of