K.SIVAKUMAR vs THE THASILDAR

Court
Madras High Court

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010871202026}
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14712 of 2026
K.Sivakumar
S/o.Kalimuthu,
No.62E, Angalamman Sirpa Salai, Malluga Street,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Thasildar
Taluk Office,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2. The Town Surveyor,
Kumbakonam Town, Thanjavur District
3. The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Santhana Gopala Krishna Swamy
Temple, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
to prefer this memorandum of grounds of writ appeal against the order
passed by this Honourable Court in W.P.(MD).No.5125 of 2026 order
dated 25-02-2026.
__________
Page  1  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
For Respondent(s) :Mr.M.P.Senthil
Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
Mr.V.Chandrasekar for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.)
Challenging the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.5125 of 2026, dismissing the writ petition,
the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.
2. Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned Government Pleader, takes notice for
the respondents 1 and 2. Mr. V. Chandrasekar, learned counsel, takes
notice for the third respondent.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides,
the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the respondents conducted the survey on 12.11.2025 without issuing prior
notice to the appellant and the other adjoining landowners, in violation of
the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.17365 of 2025, dated
26.06.2025. It was further submitted that the survey was not conducted in
__________
Page  2  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
its entirety and that the alleged encroachment measuring 12 sq. m. was
determined without properly fixing the boundaries of the temple tank
situated in S.F. No.1476. The learned counsel also contended that the
discrepancy between the earlier allegation of encroachment measuring 28
sq. m. and the subsequent allegation of 12 sq. m. demonstrated non-
application of mind on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the learned
counsel submitted that the impugned eviction notice, as well as the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, is liable
to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that notices had been issued to the
appellant on two occasions and that the appellant had sought time to
submit his reply. Thereafter, a third notice was issued to the appellant,
informing him of the date of the survey. Pursuant to the said notice, the
appellant was present at the time of the survey, which was conducted in
his presence. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader contended that,
having participated in the survey, the appellant could not subsequently
question the same on the ground of want of notice. Accordingly, he
prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
__________
Page  3  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and
2, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, and
perused the materials available on record.
7. It is seen from the records that the grievance of the appellant is
that the second respondent conducted the survey on 12.11.2025 without
issuing prior notice to him and, based on the said survey, issued the
impugned notice dated 11.02.2026, calling upon him to remove the
alleged encroachment measuring 12 sq. m. However, the learned
Government Pleader submitted that notices had been issued to the
appellant on two occasions and that the appellant was present when the
survey was conducted pursuant to the third notice informing him of the
date of the survey.
8. In view of the above submissions and the materials available on
record, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was
justified in dismissing the writ petition. We find no grounds warranting
interference with the order under challenge.
__________
Page  4  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
9.Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The appellant is at liberty to approach the civil Court for appropriate
relief.

(P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.)
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AM
__________
Page  5  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
To
1. The Thasildar
Taluk Office,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2. The Town Surveyor,
Kumbakonam Town, Thanjavur District
__________
Page  6  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )

WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
AM
WA(MD) No. 1726 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page  7  of  7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:32:20 pm )