SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24920

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.V.Arun
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath

The court affirms the importance of protecting waterbodies, ruling that illegal constructions must be addressed in accordance with statutory provisions.

Headnote:The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent the construction of a burning ghat over a waterbody in violation of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The court emphasizes the necessity of protecting waterbodies and orders the second respondent to address the pending representation of the petitioner within four weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits. The petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top