VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Rajakantham v. The District Collector

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
13 August 2026
Bench
M.Dhandapani, N.Dilip Kumarauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 22513/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow M.DhandapaniFollow N.Dilip Kumar

Judgment

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 10.07.2026 issued by the third respondent and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to conduct a fresh survey of the Government land comprised in Survey No.181, measuring an extent of 0.92.5 Hectares, and the petitioner husband lands comprised in Survey Nos. 183/Al measuring to an extent of 0.07.0 Hectare, 209/C3 measuring to an extent of 0.11.5 Hectare, 209/D measuring to an extent of 0.20.0 Hectare and 209/F measuring to an extent of

0.22.0 Hectare situated at Punjaikadampankurichi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District5 after affording me and all adjoining lanowners a reasonable opportunity of hearing and by considering the petitioner's representation dated

18.07.2026 and Survey Application No.2026/0123/14/001894 dated 17.07.2026.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 10.07.2026, alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon the "Vandipaathai" to an extent of 264 metres in Survey No.181. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authority competent to pass such an order can exercise the power only under Section 131(2) of the Act. However, the third respondent has issued the impugned notice under Section 132(2) of the Act. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the impugned notice and thereafter, to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶3We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available materials on record.

¶4In view of the above submission and considering the nature and purpose for which the impugned notice has been issued, this Court, by treating the impugned notice dated 10.07.2026 as a show cause notice issued under Section 131(2) of the Act, is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the said notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation, the third respondent shall conduct a proper survey and measurement of the properties in question, after issuing due notice to the petitioner and all other necessary and adjoining parties and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶5The Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [M.D.I.,J.] & [N.D.K.,J.]

13.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN To

¶1The District Collector, Karur,

¶2The Tahsildar,

¶3The Block Development Officer/special Officer, Karur Panchayat Union, Vennamalai, Karur District-639 006.

¶4The Executive Officer, Punjaikadampakurichi, M.DHANDAPANI

, J.

and

N.DILIP KUMAR, J. PKN

13.08.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR W.P(MD)No.22513 of 2026 and WMP (MD) Nos.16749 and 16750 of 2026 Rajakantham ... Petitioner vs. 1. The District Collector, Karur, 2. The Tahsildar, 3. The Block Development Officer/special Officer, Karur Panchayat Union, Vennamalai, Karur District- 639 006. 4. The Executive Officer, Punjaikadampakurichi, ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.A1/1/2026-1 dated 10.07.2026 under Section 132(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, quash the same, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh survey of the Government land comprised in Survey No.181, measuring an extent of 0.92.5 Hectares, and the petitioner husband lands comprised in Survey Nos. 183/Al measuring to an extent of 0.07.0 Hectare, 209/C3 measuring to an extent of 0.11.5 Hectare, 209/D measuring to an extent of 0.20.0 Hectare and 209/F measuring to an extent of 0.22.0 Hectare situated at Punjaikadampankurichi Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District5 after affording me and all adjoining lanowners a reasonable opportunity of hearing and by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.07.2026 and Survey Application No.2026/0123/14/001894 dated 17.07.2026. For Petitioner : Mr. V.Sukumar For Respondents : Mr.S.I.Muthiah (R1, R2 & R4) Additional Government Pleader : Mr.I,.Pinaygash (R3) Special Government Pleader

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.