Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 89555
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, N. Dilip Kumar, JJ
P. Selvam – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.25811 of 2026|WMP (MD) Nos.19328 and 19329 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Surliraja
For the Respondents: M. Mahaboob Athiff
The court disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice, granting the competent authority liberty to proceed against alleged encroachments in accordance with the law, specifically where the land classification in the A-Register was a point of contention.
Headnote:(A) Eviction Proceedings - Jurisdiction - Land Classification - Where land is classified as “Kalam Veedu” in the A-Register, the authority's jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007 is questioned based on the nature of the land. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the eviction notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007 was legal in respect of land classified as “Kalam Veedu”.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the competent authority to proceed in the manner known to law.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned letter issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Letter.No.Ko.Mukaam/2026 dated 07.08.2026 and the quash the same as illegal.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)
Challenging the eviction notice dated 07.08.2026 issued by the third respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has issued an eviction notice under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007, in respect of Survey No.111 to an extent of 0.2.15 ares, Survey No.152/1 to an extent of 9.50 ares and Survey No. 152/2 to an extent of 4.50 ares. However, the petitioner is not in occupation of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.111 and 152/1. The petitioner is in occupation of the land comprised in Survey No.152/2, which, as per the remarks in the A- Register, is classified as “Kalam Veedu”. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings under the said Act in respect of Survey No.152/2. However, the petitioner has no objection to the respondents proceeding with the eviction in respect of Survey Nos.111 and 152/1.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. In respect of Survey No.152/2, liberty is granted to the competent authority to proceed against the alleged encroachment in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
