Disposed¶29

R.Kanagaraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Feb 2026WP(MD)/2669/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim-direction disposal of a certiorari writ (W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2026, decided 05.02.2026): UDR mutation error ('natham' reclassified as 'water body') under enquiry before the District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi; enforcement of the Tahsildar's eviction proceedings under Section 6 of the Act suspended (kept in abeyance) for eight weeks; DRO to decide within four weeks; merits expressly not examined; Sankarankoil Taluk; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings kept in abeyance for eight weeks; District Revenue Officer to conclude enquiry and pass orders within four weeks; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P(MD)Nos.2256 & 2257 of 2026) closed. ¶29

R.Kanagaraj Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned enforcement/eviction proceedings under Section 6 of the Act initiated by the Tahsildar should be kept in abeyance while the District Revenue Officer, competent to correct the UDR mutation error, is seized of the matter.

¶22

Court's answer

Taking into account that the District Revenue Officer is seized of the matter, the Court directed the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance for a period of eight weeks.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The District Revenue Officer is directed to conclude the enquiry and pass order one way or the other within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it has not gone into the merits of the matter.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

R.Kanagaraj v. The District Collector, Tenkasi District and others (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, 05.02.2026, G.R.Swaminathan J. and B.Pugalendhi J.) - W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2026, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari against the third respondent's order in REVSKL/645/2025-B4 dated 28.10.2025 and 19.01.2026, sought to be enforced under Section 6 of the Act (statute not named in the judgment). The petitioner's land, originally classified as 'natham', had been mutated as 'water body' during UDR; correction of such error lies with the District Revenue Officer, before whom the enquiry was pending (summon issued, petitioner appeared). Holding that the District Revenue Officer is seized of the matter, the Bench directed the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance for eight weeks and directed the District Revenue Officer to conclude the enquiry and pass orders within four weeks, expressly without going into the merits. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2256 & 2257 of 2026

R.Kanagaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Sankarankoil Taluk, Sankarankoil, Tenkasi District.

¶13

4.The Revenue Inspector, Karivalamvandanallur, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tenkasi District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2026

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of 3rd respondent in REVSKL/645/2025-B4 dated 28.10.2025 and 19.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that while the District Revenue

¶22

Officer is seized of the matter, the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act is sought to be enforced.

¶23

2.According to the petitioner, the land in question was originally classified as “natham” and during UDR it was mutated as “water body”. Since any error that had taken place during UDR can be corrected only by the District Revenue Officer, the petitioner approached the District Revenue Officer who is seized of the matter. Summon was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner also appeared for the enquiry. In the meanwhile, an eviction order has been passed, and steps are being taken to enforce the same.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.2669 of 2026

¶27

3.Taking into account the fact that the District Revenue Officer is

¶28

seized of the matter, we direct the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance for a period of eight weeks. The District Revenue Officer is directed to conclude the enquiry and pass order one way or the other within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶29

4.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

[G.R.S., J.] [B.P., J.] 05.02.2026

¶31

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶34