Disposed¶38

Mrs.G.Mahalakshmi, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Jun 2026WP/24513/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coovum river bed; encroachment eviction; Form-II; Form-III notice; Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Rules, 2007; Koyambedu; Mettukulam Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar; Poonamallee High Road; Water Resources Department; Adyar Basin Division; Tahsildar Aminjikarai; NHAI; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226; patta; S.No.1; S.No.4/3; Town Survey No. 4/3; semblance of title; survey 26.05.2026; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a specific direction that the respondents may evict any encroachment in S.No.1 alone and shall not proceed in respect of S.No.4/3, where there is semblance of title in favour of the petitioner; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶38

Mrs.G.Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the Form-III eviction notice was invalidly issued without prior publication of the survey report and map in Form-II as contended under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Rules, 2007. +1 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

On the clarification tendered by the learned Government Advocate and recorded by the Court, the impugned notice shows that, in addition to the petitioner's patta land, the petitioner has occupied S.No.1, which is classified as 'Coovum River Bed', and the authorities intend to clear encroachment along the Coovum river bed.

¶37

Key takeaways

Recording the Government Advocate's clarification, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction that the respondents are at liberty to evict any encroachment in S.No.1 alone and shall not proceed in respect of S.No.4/3, where there is semblance of title in favour of the petitioner.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Rejection Order dated 02.06.2026 (Procedural Order No. 2/Adyar Basin Division) and the consequential Form-III Eviction Notice dated 03.06.2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, concerning alleged encroachment on the Coovum River bank at Koyambedu, Chennai. The petitioner, who claimed patta/title over land in S.No.4/3 and denied occupying S.No.1, had also objected that Form-III notice was issued without publication of Form-II survey report and map as required under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Rules, 2007. Recording the Government Advocate's clarification that S.No.1 is 'Coovum River Bed' and that the notice concerns occupation of S.No.1 in addition to the petitioner's patta land, the Court directed that the respondents are free to evict encroachment in S.No.1 alone and shall not proceed against S.No.4/3, where there is semblance of title in favour of the petitioner. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

WP No. 24513 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶8

WP No. 24513 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 26720 OF 2026,WMP NO. 26722 OF 2026

¶9

Mrs.G.Mahalakshmi, W/o. Mr.P.Ganesan, 105/1 Secretariat Colony, 7th Street, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶13

Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Adyar Irrigation Division, Adyar Basin Division, Punitha Thomas Malai, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai District - 600 030.

¶15

The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 107.

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

__________ Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 24513 of 2026

¶20

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Rejection Order dated 02.06.2026 bearing Procedural Order No. 2/Adyar Basin Division passed by the 2nd Respondent and the consequential Eviction Notice in Form-III dated 03.06.2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to desist from taking any coercive action against the Petitioners in relation to the property is comprised in Old S.No. 155/1 part, Town Survey No. 4/3, in Block No. 34, No. 106, Koyembedu Village, Chennai, situated at Door No. 39, Mettukulam, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600107, measuring an extent of 7,200 sq.ft.and pass such other or further Orders as this Honble Court

¶21

For Petitioner(s): K.R.Arun Shabari D.Pazhani H.Abdul Muthalif-MS/7692/2024 M.Sathish Krishna For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surendar, GA

¶22

Order

¶23

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

¶24

(1) Mr.K.Surendar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶25

(2) The proceedings of the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment upon the Coovum River Bank, is challenged in this writ petition.

¶26

(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Rules, 2007,

¶27

Page2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 24513 of 2026

¶30

the Assistant Director of Land Survey and Records Department should authorise the officers to survey the water bodies and the report of the Survey Officers along with the Map has to be published in Form-II and only thereafter, if there is any encroachment, notice under Form-III to be issued. In the present csae, the authorities have issues Form-III notice without publishing Form-II. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has a valid title for the land in S.No.4/3, in which she had let out the property on rental basis for commercial purpose and she has not encroached any portion of S.No.1. While so, when the impugned notice was issued for eviction, she participated in the enquiry and produced the patta for her land. However, the impugned order is being passed as if the petitioner had encroached S.No.4/3 and S.No.1.

¶31

(4) The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the process of survey and publishing the map had been done long back and Form-III notice was issued to the petitioner only for ascertaining whether the petitioner is in occupation of S.No.1, which is classified as ‘’Coovum River Bed’’.

¶32

(5) In fact, when the notice was issued to the petitioner for eviction, she represented that she possessed patta for the land in her occupation. Hence, on 26.05.2026, in the presence of the petitioner, survey of the land was conducted and the encroachment was confirmed. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected vide impugned

¶33

Page3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 24513 of 2026

¶36

proceedings dated 02.06.2026.

¶37

(6) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice reads as if the petitioner is in occupation of the land in S.No.4/3 also and the water body is being encroached by her, which is contrary to the Sale Deeds held by the petitioner. It is clarified by the learned Government Advocate that S.No.1 is the Coovum river Bed and the intention of the authorities is to clear the encroachment along the Coovum river bed. The notice is also very clear that in addition to the petitioner’s patta land, the petitioner has occupied S.No.1, which is classified as ‘’Coovum river Bed’’.

¶38

(7) Recording the clarification given by the learned Government Advocate, we dispose of the writ petition with a specific direction that the respondents are at liberty to evict any encroachment in S.No.1 alone and shall not proceed in respect of S.No.4/3, where there is semblance of title in favour of the petitioner.

¶39

(8) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

(G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 25-06-2026

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

Page4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

WP No. 24513 of 2026

¶46

¶47

The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶48

Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Adyar Irrigation Division, Adyar Basin Division, Punitha Thomas Malai, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016.

¶49