Disposed¶37

Govindaraju v. The District Collector cum Monitoring committee

Madras HC2 Apr 2026WP(MD)/23889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD)No.23889 of 2025; Govindaraju v. District Collector cum Monitoring Committee, Ramanathapuram & others; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; 02.04.2026; Article 226 mandamus; irrigation channel survey; Kothakulam Group; Surikkanenthal Village; Paramakudi Taluk; Ramanathapuram; Mosukudi Kanmai water flow; WRD records vs SLR and FMB; Tahsildar directed to survey; 7th respondent Karthick; fresh writ petition permitted; petition disposed, no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18762 & 18763 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk to conduct the survey in the presence of interested persons including the 7th respondent, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition based on the survey outcome; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶37

Govindaraju Vs The District Collector cum Monitoring… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents 1 to 6 should be directed, by writ of mandamus, to conduct a proper survey and inspection of the irrigation channel passing through S.Nos.229 & 220 of Kothakulam Group, Surikkanenthal Village, Paramakudi Taluk, and ensure uninterrupted flow of water to Mosukudi Kanmai.

¶24

Court's answer

Since the existence and extent of the channel can be established only by a proper survey, the court directed the Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk to conduct the survey in the presence of the interested persons including the 7th respondent.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh writ petition based on the outcome of the survey.

¶37

Key takeaways

Whether the channel shown in the petitioner's SLR and FMB exists as against departmental (WRD) records can be revealed only if a proper survey is conducted.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MANDAMUS – SURVEY OF IRRIGATION CHANNEL (Madurai Bench, 02.04.2026): Petitioner Govindaraju sought direction to respondents 1–6 to survey the irrigation channel through S.Nos.229 & 220 of Kothakulam Group, Surikkanenthal Village, Paramakudi Taluk, and secure uninterrupted flow to Mosukudi Kanmai. The instructing official from WRD stated the channel is not reflected in departmental records, while the petitioner relied on SLR and FMB entries showing its extent. The court held these aspects can be revealed only by a proper survey, directed the Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk to survey in the presence of interested persons including the 7th respondent, permitted a fresh writ petition based on the outcome, disposed of the petition without costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.23889 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23889 of 2025

¶7

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18762 & 18763 of 2025

Govindaraju

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector cum Monitoring Committee, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram.

¶13

2.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶14

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Ramanathapuram.

¶15

4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

5.The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer,

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.23889 of 2025

¶20

Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶21

6.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶22

7.Karthick

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to conduct a proper survey and inspection of the irrigation channel passing through S.Nos.229 & 220 of Kothakulam Group, Surikkanenthal Village, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and enure uninterrupted flow of water to Mosukudi Kanmai.

¶25

For Petitioner :Mr.D.Senthil

¶26

For Respondents :Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 & R6

¶27

: Mr.G.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R5

¶28

: Mr.C.Senthil Murugan for R7

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2/5

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.23889 of 2025

¶34

The petitioner asserts that an irrigation channel runs through S.Nos.229 & 230 of Kothakulam Group.

¶35

The instructing official from WRD states that in the records

¶36

maintained by the department, the existence of the channel is not reflected. The petitioner's counsel states that in SLR and in FMB, the extent of the channel is very much shown. These aspects can be revealed only if a proper survey is conducted.

¶37

The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk is directed to conduct survey in the presence of the interested persons including the 7th respondent. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh writ petition based on the outcome of the survey. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 02.04.2026

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No rmi

¶40

¶41

3/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.23889 of 2025

¶44

1.The District Collector cum Monitoring Committee, Office of the Collectorate, Ramanathapuram.

¶45

2.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶46

3.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Ramanathapuram.

¶47

4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶48

5.The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Paramakudi,

¶49

Ramanathapuram District.

¶50

6.The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶51

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

¶52

4/5

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.23889 of 2025

and

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

rmi

W.P(MD)No.23889 of 2025

¶59

02.04.2026

¶60

5/5

¶61

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

Govindaraju v. The District Collector cum Monitoring committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaraju v. The District Collector cum Monitoring committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Dasarathan Vs The Collector

Vellaichamy Vs The District Collector

Rajendran Vs The State Rep. by The District Collector / The Monitoring Committee

Arulkumar Vs Nithya

R.Murugesan Vs Uthayakumar

K.Jeganathan Vs M.Sridhar