M.Rajendran v. W.P.(MD)No.17951of 20216.The Assistant Engineer, Kallanai Canal Division, Public Works Department, Water Resources
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Lower Cauvery Basin Circle, Water Resources Division, Thanjavur.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17951of 20216.The Assistant Engineer, Kallanai Canal Division, Public Works Department, Water Resources Division, Boodhalur, Thanjavur District.... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India…
Judgment
W.P.(MD)No.17951of 2021BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 08.06.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANandTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMAW.P.(MD)No.17951 of 2021andW.M.P.(MD)No.14820, 14821 and 14822 of 2021M.Rajendran... PetitionerVs.
The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thanjavur.
The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.
The Tahsildar, Boodhalur Revenue Taluk, Thanjavur District.
Operative part
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Lower Cauvery Basin Circle, Water Resources Division, Thanjavur.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17951of 20216.The Assistant Engineer, Kallanai Canal Division, Public Works Department, Water Resources Division, Boodhalur, Thanjavur District.... RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relates to the impugned notice dated 2.7.2021 issued by the 6th respondent and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently protect the actual cultivation being done by the petitioner measuring to an extent of Ac. 02.00 Cents in S.No.408, Maraneri Village, Bhoodalur Taluk, Thanjavur District, under The Tamil Nadu protected Agricultural Zone Development Act 2020 (TamilNadu Act 11 of 2020).For Petitioner: Mr.A.Senthil Kumar For Respondents: Mr.L.Siva, Government Advocate.ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)Heard both sides. 2. The writ petitioner challenges the impugned eviction order issued by the sixth respondent.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17951of 20213.When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.R.Manikandan, Assistant Engineer, WRD, Grand Anaicut Canal Section, Budalur, Thanjavur District informs the Court that the writ petitioner is not in possession of S.No.408, Maraneri Village, Budalur Taluk which has been classified as “foreshore area” of a water body. 4. Recording the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 08.06.2026NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoiasTo:1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thanjavur. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17951of 20213.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur. 4. The Tahsildar, Boodhalur Revenue Taluk, Thanjavur District. 5. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Lower Cauvery Basin Circle, Water Resources Division, Thanjavur.
The Assistant Engineer, Kallanai Canal Division, Public Works Department, Water Resources Division, Boodhalur, Thanjavur District.4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17951of 20215/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17951of 2021G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.andR.POORNIMA, J.iasW.P.(MD)No.17951 of 2021 08.06.2026(1/3)6/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Agricultural Zone Development Act, 2020.
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.