IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
S.K.Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration – Respondent
W.P.No.9638 of 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for direction on construction over waterbody. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state counsel contests construction location. (Para 3) |
| 3. order for decision on pending representation. (Para 4) |
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to prevent further construction of burning ghat by the 6th respondent over the water body situate in S.No.611/1 in Kadalangudi Village, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District and remove the same within the time frame as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.V.Arun For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 1, 2 and 4 to prevent further construction of the burning ghat by the 6th respondent over the water body situate in S.No.611/1 in Kadalangudi Village, Kuthalam Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District and to remove the same within a time frame.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that construction over the waterbody is illegal and is in violation of the provisions of law. This Court, on number of occasions, has emphasized protection of waterbodies and directed removal of encroachment as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, no construction, whether by individual or government authorities, can be permitted on waterbodies. He also submits that petitioner has submitted a representation on 30.10.2025 and the same is pending consideration.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the construction of electric crematorium has been made in S.No.611/2 & 3 and not in S.No.611/1.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we direct second respondent to take a decision on the pending representation of petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from today and pass a reasoned and speaking order. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
5. Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.