Disposed

Rajaji M v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Apr 2026WP(MD)/10702/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tahsildar to conduct a survey regarding alleged encroachments on government land. Upon confirmation, action was to be taken under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act for removal, to be completed within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to conduct a survey and take action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act within four months.

Rajaji M Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.10702 OF 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.10702 of 2026

M.Rajaji

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, O/o.the Tahsildar, Tiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

The Block Development Officer / Monitoring Committee, O/o.the Block Development Officer, Narikudi, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

The Village Administrative Officer, Meenakulam Group, Papankulam Village, Tiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

K.Rajaji

¶17

M.Subramanian 7. Thirupathi ... Respondents

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

2 W.P.(MD)NO.10702 OF 2026

¶21

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the official respondents, particularly the third respondent to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 5 to 7 in the water channels and kanmai situated in survey No.6/2 and 22 of Pappankulam Village, Tiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader for R-1 to R-4.

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner

¶26

and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶27

Issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed

¶28

with.

¶29

The writ petitioner is a resident of Papankulam Village in

¶30

2/5

¶31

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

¶32

3 W.P.(MD)NO.10702 OF 2026

¶33

Thiruchuzhi Taluk. He complains that in the petition mentioned survey numbers, there are encroachments.

¶34

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petition mentioned

¶35

survey numbers have been classified as “vari” and kanmoi”.

¶36

We direct the second respondent to conduct survey after issuing notice to all the interested persons including the petitioner herein. Once encroachment is confirmed, action will be taken under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to have the same to be removed. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (B.PUGALENDHI, J.) 16^th April 2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶38

PMU

¶39

3/5

¶40

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

¶41

4 W.P.(MD)NO.10702 OF 2026

¶42

To:

¶43

The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

¶44

The Tahsildar, O/o.the Tahsildar, Tiruchuzhi, Virudhunagar District.

¶45

The Block Development Officer / Monitoring Committee, O/o.the Block Development Officer, Narikudi, Virudhunagar District.

¶46

The Village Administrative Officer, Meenakulam Group, Papankulam Village, Tiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶47

4/5

¶48

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

¶49

5 W.P.(MD)NO.10702 OF 2026

¶50

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

PMU

W.P.(MD)No.10702 of 2026

¶55

16.04.2026

¶56

5/5

¶57

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

Rajaji M v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaji M 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

K.M.Udaiyappan, Vs the District Collector

Sengol Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its

K.M.Udayappan Vs the District Collector

M.Raja Vs The District Collector

V.Sanmathi Vs The District Collector

Sundara Jeyamani Vs The District Collector