Disputed factual issues must be adjudicated in civil courts, not through a writ under Article 226.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering/ altering the water channel running through Survey No.29/2B and 29/2C situated at Murukkampadi Village, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District based on the petitioner’s representation dated

24.02.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendiran for R1 to R8 Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering/ altering the water channel running through Survey No.29/2B and 29/2C situated at Murukkampadi Village, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District based on the petitioner’s representation dated

24.02.2026.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the lands comprised in S.Nos.29/2A, 29/2C, 29/2D1A, 29/2D1B, 29/2D3, 29/2E, 29/2H situated at Murukkampadi Village and the lands comprised in S.No.37/5B of Athiyenthal Village, Vanapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District. The lands in Murukkampadi Village and Athiyenthal Village depends on the water that comes from the Venpennai River through the Sathanur Dam. Since there was no water channel for the water to reach the lake located at S.No.36 of Athiyenthal Village, the petitioner formed a water channel to pass through the land in S.No.29/2B belonging to the ninth respondent and S.No.29/2C belonging to the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the ninth respondent with an intent to grab the petitioner’s lands in S.No.29/2C, approached the respondents 6 to 8 to divert the water channel’s flow and the respondents 6 to 8 came to the said lands and insisted the petitioner to divert the flow of the water channel. In this regard, the petitioner made representation dated 24.02.2026 to the official respondents, however, the respondents without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry, decided to change the water channel. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the official respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and to pass appropriate orders.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner destroyed the water channel in S.No.37/5B and formed water channel in his lands in S.No.29/2C and further submitted that the petitioner himself admits that he diverted the water channel without permission from the Revenue Officials and further submitted that the petitioner have no right to divert the water channel.

5.The issues involved in this writ petition are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can be adjudicated only before the competent civil Forum and hence the remedy available to the petitioner is before the competent civil Forum.

6.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.