Dismissed¶32

Johnson v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WP(MD)/16749/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Burial ground; burning ground; Puthuvayal Village; Ariyapuvayal Village; Kanmai bund; Ramanathapuram District; Thiruvadanai Taluk; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act Section 7 and Section 6; encroachment notice; water channel; public interest litigation; restraint of statutory powers; dismissed; no costs; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; Johnson v. District Collector Ramanathapuram.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner seeks to restrain the authorities from exercising their statutory powers, and this Court cannot issue directions preventing the authorities from acting in accordance with law. ¶28

Johnson Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue forbearing the respondents from establishing a burial and burning ground in Survey Nos. 66, 68/10 and 69/2A of Puthuvayal Village without following the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 and without considering the representation dated 02.06.2026. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The petitioner seeks to restrain the authorities from exercising their statutory powers, and this Court cannot issue directions preventing the authorities from acting in accordance with law.

¶28

Key takeaways

Before passing any final order, the authorities shall verify whether the proposed burial ground is situated within a water channel; the question is left to the competent authorities to consider along with all relevant factors.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P(MD)No.16749 of 2026 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, order dated 18.06.2026, N.Sathish Kumar, J. with P.B. Balaji, J.): Johnson v. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District and others. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from forming a burial and burning ground in S.Nos.66, 68/10 and 69/2A at Puthuvayal Village without following due procedure under the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 and without considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.06.2026. Background: villagers had used their own burial ground for more than 15 years after burials near the Kanmai bund caused odour; the Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk issued a notice dated 05.06.2026 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to five persons treating them as encroachers. Held: this Court cannot issue directions preventing the authorities from acting in accordance with law; it is for the competent authorities to consider all relevant factors, and before passing any final order they shall verify whether the proposed burial ground is situated within a water channel. Writ petition dismissed as lacking merit; no costs; connected W.M.P(MD)No.12419 of 2026 closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16749 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.16749 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.12419 of 2026

Johnson

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from forming burial and burning ground in S.No.66, 68/10, 69/2A at Puthuvayal Village, without following due procedure under Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 by considering representation dated 02.06.2026.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chellappandian For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for State

¶17

W.P(MD)No.16749 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from establishing a burial and burning ground in Survey Nos. 66, 68/10, and 69/2A of Puthuvayal Village without following the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999.

¶21

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the residents of Ariyapuvayal Village used to bury dead bodies near the Kanmai bund. Over time, the burial of bodies allegedly caused an intolerable odour in the surrounding area. Consequently, the villagers, on their own initiative, established a burial ground within their village and have been using it for more than 15 years.

¶22

3.Subsequently, the Government decided to establish a burial ground in the village. According to the petitioner, the site selected for the proposed burial

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.16749 of 2026

¶26

ground is being used as a pathway by the villagers, including school-going children. It is further stated that the second respondent issued a notice dated 05.06.2026 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act to five persons, treating them as encroachers and calling upon them to show cause as to why action under Section 6 of the Act should not be initiated against them.

¶27

The petitioner, on behalf of the villagers, submitted a representation dated 02.06.2026 to the respondents. Since no action was taken on the said representation, the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed.

¶28

Upon perusal of the records, we are of the view that the petitioner seeks to restrain the authorities from exercising their statutory powers. This Court cannot issue directions preventing the authorities from acting in accordance with law. It is for the competent authorities to consider all relevant factors, including whether the proposed burial ground falls within a water channel. Before passing any final order, the authorities shall verify whether the proposed burial ground is situated within a water channel.

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(MD)No.16749 of 2026

¶32

In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

[N.S.K.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.] 18.06.2026

¶34

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am

¶35

¶36