Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- N SATHISH KUMAR
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the ‘A’ Register clearly indicates that Survey Nos.333/5A and 333/5B are classified as “Natham Poromboke.” Be that as it may, once a land is classified as natham and is in occupation, the…
Judgment
W.P(MD)No.10103 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 10.04.2026CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMANW.P(MD)No.10103 of 2026R.Karuppasamy ... Petitionervs.
The District Collector / The Chairman, District Monitoring Committee, Virudhunagar District.
The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
The Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
Saraswathi ... Respondents1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.10103 of 2026PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the encroachment made in Government poromboke land comprised in S.No.333/5, Udkadai Sundara Kudumbanpatti Kolvarpatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District by the fifth respondent herein. For Petitioner: Mr.T.S.Mohamed MohideenFor Respondents: Mr.A.Kannan (R1 to R4) Additional Government PleaderORDER(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the alleged encroachment made by the fifth respondent in the Government poromboke land comprised in Survey No.333/5, Udkadai Sundarakudumbanpatti, Kolvarpatti, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.10103 of 20262.The petitioner states that he is a resident of Sundarakudumbanpatti and that the land in Survey No.333/5 is classified as Government poromboke land.
It is alleged that the fifth respondent has encroached upon the said land by installing a bore well and putting up a tin shed. 3. It is further submitted that, as per the ‘A’ Register, Survey No.333/5 has subsequently been reclassified as Survey Nos.333/5A and 333/5B, categorized as grama natham and ularkalam (paddy drying land), respectively. The petitioner contends that, due to the encroachment made by the fifth respondent, a portion of the pathway in common use has been obstructed. 4. The petitioner states that, based on his earlier representation dated 20.07.2023, the District Collector, by proceedings dated 08.01.2024, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, to take action regarding the 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.10103 of 2026said encroachment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a further representation dated 05.07.2024. Despite repeated representations, no effective action has been taken by the respondents.
5. The petitioner further submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2014, and G.O.(Ms)No.64, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 08.02.2024, the authorities are empowered and obligated to identify and remove encroachments on Government lands. It is also stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, by proceedings dated July 2024, instructed the Tahsildar to take necessary action in accordance with the said Government Orders. However, the encroachment, including the tin shed and bore well with an alleged illegal electricity connection, continues to remain. In these circumstances, due to the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.10103 of 20266.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the subject land in question is classified as natham land.
The fifth respondent contends that she has been in occupation of the said land for more than 20 years, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land is classified as ularkalam.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
Operative part
On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the ‘A’ Register clearly indicates that Survey Nos.333/5A and 333/5B are classified as “Natham Poromboke.” Be that as it may, once a land is classified as natham and is in occupation, the question of invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 does not arise. Hence, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.10103 of 202610.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 10.04.2026NCC: Yes / NoIndex: Yes / NoInternet: YespsTo1.The District Collector / The Chairman, District Monitoring Committee, Virudhunagar District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 4. The Tahsildar, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.10103 of 2026N.SATHISH KUMAR , J. andM.JOTHIRAMAN , J. psW.P(MD)No.10103 of 2026DATED : 10.04.20267/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.