Disposed¶22

Arikanda Perumal.So v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Apr 2026WP(MD)/2648/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: W.P.(MD)No.2648 of 2021; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Writ of Mandamus; encroachment removal; compound wall; nilaviyal odai; S.No.94/1E Chettikulam Village Radhapuram Taluk Tirunelveli District; District Collector; Thasildar; disputed questions of fact; liberty to file civil suit; petitioner and third respondent deceased; legal representatives; representation dated 23.09.2020; writ petition disposed of; no costs; G.R.Swaminathan J.; R.Poornima J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to the petitioner's legal representatives to file a civil suit for enforcing their remedy; writ petition disposed of; no costs. ¶22

Arikanda Perumal.So Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2648 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2648 of 2021

So.Arikanda Perumal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvlei.

¶11

2.The Thasildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelvlei District.

¶12

3.Thavasipaul

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made by the 3rd respondent in S.No.94/1E, Chettikulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District on basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.09.2020.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2648 of 2021

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Karthick Raja, For M/s.Ajmal Assocates. For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2.

¶19

ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

2.The petitioner is no more. The third respondent is also no more. The case projected before us is that the encroachment was committed by third respondent in S.No.94/1E, Chettikulam Village by constructing a compound wall.

¶22

3.The categorical statement of the official respondents is that the compound wall does not obstruct the free flow of water through the nilaviyal odai. This assertion is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since disputed questions of fact are involved, the petitioner's legal representatives are given liberty to file a civil suit for enforcing their remedy.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.2648 of 2021

¶26