Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
RADHA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. U.Kathiravan
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Naveenkumar, Mr.C.Kathiravan
Court directed timely consideration of representation regarding agricultural land flood risk without prejudicing respondents.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the petitioner's claim regarding the construction of a bed dam affecting their agricultural lands. The court exercises its discretion by directing the relevant authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2025 within a specified timeframe. The ruling poses no opinion on the merits of the representation but emphasizes the need for a timely response.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consideration of the petitioner's grievance by authoritative bodies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's direction for action within stipulated time. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. final decision permitting governmental action. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to ensure free flow of rain water to the petitioner’s property, morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 26.12.2025.
2.The petitioner claims that due to the construction of the bed dam near the lake water inlet at the place, morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition, the petitioner’s agricultural lands adjoining the same are affected. Due to water stagnation and submergence of the petitioner’s agricultural lands, the petitioner therefore had given a representation on 26.12.2025 to the respondents requesting them to ensure free flow of rain water. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5. Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the fourth respondent.
4.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner’s representation, as stated supra, is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
5.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.
6.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the fourth respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 26.12.2025 requesting the respondents to ensure free flow of rain water in the area, morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
