T.S. Sivakumar Alias Prakash vs T.S.Chellakumarasamy

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No s .2295 , 1876 and 1364 of 2026
and C.M.P.No s .12532, 16866, 19953, 16864 and 19957 of 2026
W.A.No.2295 of 2026:
T.S. Sivakumar alias Prakash
S/o. Late T.S. Subramaniam,
No.18/31, Tank Street,
Thiruvenkadapalayam,
Karumandisellipalayam Village,
Perundurai Taluk,
Erode District - 638 052.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. T.S.Chellakumarasamy
S/o.T.S.Subramanian,
No.18/31, Tank Street,
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk,
Erode District-638052.
Now temporarily residing at
No.115, Periyar Nagar,
Flat No.4, Vijay Apartments,
Erode - 638 001.
______________
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
2. The District Collector
Erode District, Erode - 638 001.
3. The District Revenue Officer
Erode District, Erode.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode - 638 001, Erode District.
5. The Tahsildar
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
6. The Sub Registrar
Perundurai, Erode District.
7. The Executive Officer
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
8. The Town Panchayat President
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
9. The Village Administrative Officer
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
10.Sri Venkatachalapathy Earth Movers
Tholilalar Lorry Booking Office,
37, Bhavani Main Road
Perundurai - 638 052.
11.SMR Earth Movers
No.114/3, By Pass Corner,
Kanikoil Road, Perundurai - 638 052.
Respondent(s)
______________
Page 2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
W.A.No.1876 of 2026:
R.Kodeeswaran
S/o.Late.M.Ravindran,
Door No.3/109, Sambalakaadu,
Karukkupalayam, Thingalur,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District,
Pin-638 055.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy
S/o.T.S.Subramanian,
No.18/31, Tank Street,
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk,
Erode District.
2. The District Collector
Collectorate, Erode - 638 001.
3. The District Revenue Officer
Erode District, Erode – 638 001.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode - 638 001, Erode District.
5. The Tahsildar
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
6. The Sub Registrar
Perundurai, Erode District.
7. The Executive Officer
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam (Special Grade) Town Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
______________
Page 3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
8. The Town Panchayat President
Karumandisellipalayam (Special Grade) Town Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
9. The Village Administrative Officer
Karumandisellipalayam (Special Grade) Town Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
10.T.S. Sivakumar alias Prakash
S/o. Late T.S. Subramaniam,
No.18/31, Tank Street, Thiruvenkadapalayam,
Karumandisellipalayam Village, Perundurai,
Erode District.
11.Sri Venkatachalapathy Earth Movers
Tholilalar Lorry Booking Office,
37, Bhavani Main Road
Perundurai - 638 052.
12.SMR Earth Movers
No.114/3, By Pass Corner,
Kanikoil Road, Perundurai - 638 052.
Respondent(s)
W.A.No.1364 of 2026:
R.Kodeeswaran
S/o.Late.M.Ravindran,
Door No.3/109, Sambalakaadu,
Karukkupalayam, Thingalur,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District,
Pin-638 055.
Appellant(s)
Vs
______________
Page 4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
1. The District Collector
Colectorate, Erode - 638 001.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode - 638 001.
3. The Tahsildar
Perundurai Taluk, Perundurai,
Erode District – 638 052.
4. The Executive Officer
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
5. The Town Panchayat President
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
6. Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy
S/o.T.S.Subramanian,
No.18/31, Tank Street,
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
7. T.K.Selvaraj
S/o.Late T.C.Kandasamy Gounder
Thannerpanthal Street, Nearby Sakthi Masala Complex
Thiruvenkadampalayam, Perundurai,
Erode District – 638 052.
8. T.K.Sivakumar
S/o.Late T.C.Kandasamy Gounder
Thannerpanthal Street, Nearby Sakthi Masala Complex
Thiruvenkadampalayam, Perundurai,
Erode District – 638 052.
Respondent(s)
______________
Page 5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
PRAYER in W.A.Nos.2295 and 1876 of 2026: Appeals filed under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the impugned common
order dated 11.02.2026 made in W.P.No.37501 of 2025.
PRAYER in W.A.No.1364 of 2026: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 11.02.2026
passed in W.P.No.44377 of 2025.
For Appellant(s) in
W.A.No.2295 of 2026:
Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
For Appellant(s) in
W.A.Nos.1876 and
1364 of 2026:
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
For Respondent(s) Mr.C.A.Ramanan
Government Advocate
for R2 to R9
in W.A.Nos.2295 and 1876 of 2026
for R1 to R5
in W.A.No.1364 of 2026
Mr.Sathyamoorthy
for Mr.Vikram Kumar.P.
for R1 in W.A.Nos.2295
and 1876 of 2026
and R6 in W.A.No.1364 of 2026
Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
for R10 in W.A.No.1876 of 2026
for R8 in W.A.No.1364 of 2026
No appearance
for R10 and 11
in W.A.No.2295 of 2026
______________
Page 6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
for R11 and 12
in W.A.No.1876 of 2026
for R7 in W.A.No.1364 of 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
These three intra-court appeals are directed against the
common order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.Nos.36402, 37501 and 44377 of 2025. Since all three
appeals question the same order, pertain to the same piece of land,
and raise overlapping grounds, we have heard them together and
are disposing of them by this common judgment.
2. W.A.No.1364 of 2026 is filed by R.Kodeeswaran, who was
the petitioner in W.P.No.44377 of 2025, a writ petition that came to
be dismissed. W.A.No.1876 of 2026 is filed by the very same
R.Kodeeswaran, this time in his capacity as a party not impleaded in
W.P.No.37501 of 2025, a writ petition that came to be disposed of
with some directions. W.A.No.2295 of 2026 is filed by
T.S.Sivakumar @ Prakash, the ninth respondent in W.P.No.37501 of
2025, who is aggrieved by the very same order disposing of that
______________
Page 7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
petition.
3. The land at the centre of this litigation lies in S.No.621/3
and S.No.628/8 of Thiruvengadampalayam Hamlet, Karumandiselli
Palayam (Special Grade) Town Panchayat, Perundurai Taluk, Erode
District. In the revenue records, this land stands classified as
" Government Poromboke - Cart Track ". A group of residents claim
that, classification apart, the land has in fact been used as a burial
and cremation ground by the villagers, including members of the
Arunthathiyar community, for several decades, and that a portion of
it is also used as a pathway.
4. Three writ petitions were filed touching this very land, each
pulling in a different direction.
5. One K.S.Balakrishnan, who owns adjoining land and uses
the cart track for access, filed W.P.No.36402 of 2025. He sought a
direction to restrain the authorities from reclassifying the cart track
as a burial ground, and sought a direction to prevent further burial
or cremation on the land. According to him, if the land was
______________
Page 8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
converted into a notified burial ground, it would be fenced off,
cutting off access to his property and to about 500 houses in the
vicinity. Ten persons, claiming that a graveyard has existed on this
very land from time immemorial, applied to be impleaded, and were
added as respondents 7 to 16 in the said writ petition.
6. Dr.T.S.Chellakumarasamy filed W.P.No.37501 of 2025. He
sought a direction on the authorities to earmark 23.50 ares in
S.No.621/3 and 18 ares in the western half of S.No.628/8 as burial
and burning ground, and sought action against his own brother, the
ninth respondent T.S.Sivakumar @ Prakash, and two earth-moving
contractors, for allegedly uprooting trees, removing headstones,
and levelling the graveyard with bulldozers, without any permission
from the Town Panchayat.
7. R.Kodeeswaran, who had purchased adjoining land in
S.No.629/1 and 629/2, and whose only access to that land is
through the cart track in question, filed W.P.No.44377 of 2025. He
sought a direction that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision
of Burial and Burning Ground) Rules, 1999 be strictly enforced and
______________
Page 9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
to exhume the body of one T.K.Ravichandran, buried on 21.10.2025
by his own brothers, respondents 7 and 8 in that petition, allegedly
in defiance of a status quo order, right in front of his land.
8. Since the reliefs claimed in W.P.No.36402 of 2025 and
W.P.No.37501 of 2025 touched the same land and could not both be
granted, the learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain
status quo. Subsequently, the District Collector was called upon to
hold an enquiry and report. A Special Tahsildar inspected the site on
10.11.2025 and submitted a report, which the District Collector
forwarded to the Court on 13.11.2025.
9.1. The report is worth summarising, since the impugned
order rests heavily on it. According to the report, S.No.621/3 and
S.No.628/8 are indeed classified as cart track poromboke in the
revenue records, but both survey numbers have been used as a
burial ground for over seventy years. Neither survey number has
been formally notified as a burial ground. The graves have been
disturbed by levelling carried out with machinery.
______________
Page 10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
9.2. The report further states that of the 58 cents comprising
S.No.621/3, 40.5 cents have been used for burial, 6.5 cents lie
vacant, and 11 cents carry a tarred road. Of the 91.5 cents
comprising S.No.628/8, 4.5 cents have been used for burial, 2 cents
lie vacant, 2 cents carry a tarred road, and the remaining 83 cents
continues as a cart track. Members of the Arunthathiyar community
use 1.5 cents in S.F.No.621/3 and 4.5 cents in S.F.No.628/8 for
burial, around a shrine referred to as the "Mala Temple", where
stones are laid under a tree in memory of the departed.
9.3. The report records that the Revenue Divisional Officer
had already imposed a penalty of Rs.28,200/- on the ninth
respondent for illicit felling of trees on the land. The report also
confirmed that, despite the status quo order, the body of one
T.K.Ravichandran was buried in the disputed area on 21.10.2025.
The Town Panchayat, for its part, had passed a resolution on
14.10.2025 seeking measurement of the land and its reclassification
as "burial ground", and had forwarded this resolution to the
Tahsildar. The report also referred to an earlier resolution dated
26.06.2000, under which the Town Panchayat had laid a tarred road
______________
Page 11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
within the very same land to give villagers access to the graveyard,
a road that came to be called "Cemetery Road" and was taken over
by the local body in July 2002.
10. The learned Single Judge, after tracing in some detail the
legislative history of local bodies in Tamil Nadu, held that the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and the Rules framed under it, on
which most of the arguments before him had been built, had no
application at all, since Karumandiselli Palayam is a Special Grade
Town Panchayat governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities
Act, 1920, and, after its revival, by the Tamil Nadu Urban Local
Bodies Act, 1998. Reading the resolution of the year 2000 together
with the cash book and the road ledger produced by the Executive
Officer, the learned Single Judge concluded that the land had been
used as a burial ground and crematorium at least from the year
2000, and, going by the report of the Collector, for well over
seventy years.
11. On this footing, the learned Single Judge held that it was
for the Town Panchayat, and not for the Court, to decide whether
______________
Page 12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
burial should be confined to the modern electric crematorium at
Perundurai, since such a restriction could only follow a notification
under Section 172(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act,
1998, and no such notification had been issued. Invoking Article 21
of the Constitution as extending even to the dead and referring to
various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, the learned
Judge disposed of W.P.No.37501 of 2025 with four directions:
(i) that the District Collector should ensure the burial
ground is segregated and properly fenced;
(ii) that the Town Panchayat shall keep it free of
encroachment and garbage;
(iii) that the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional
Officer shall act on the resolution dated 14.10.2025
and exclude the land from the classification of "cart
track"; and
(iv) that action be initiated against those responsible
for levelling the graves. W.P.No.44377 of 2025 and
W.P.No.36402 of 2025 were dismissed.
12. Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the
______________
Page 13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
appellant in W.A.Nos.1364 and 1876 of 2026, and Mr.I.Abrar
Mohammed Abdullah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
W.A.No.2295 of 2026, raised substantially the same points, which
may be summarised thus:
(a) The existence of a customary right to bury the
dead on land classified as a cart track was seriously
disputed on the pleadings. Such a dispute, involving
proof of a custom said to have continued for seventy
years, cannot be resolved on the strength of a
departmental inspection report, but calls for oral and
documentary evidence tested before a civil court,
and ought never to have been gone into in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
(b) Sections 172 and 173 of the Tamil Nadu Urban
Local Bodies Act, 1998, and Rules 388 and 388A of
the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, bar
the use of any place for burial or burning unless it
stands registered or licensed. A customary right
claimed over an unregistered, unlicensed place,
______________
Page 14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
cannot override this statutory scheme, and the
directions issued run contrary to it.
(c) The order under appeal runs counter to an earlier
order of a learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2025 in
W.P.No.35426 of 2024, which, following the Full
Bench in Jegadeeswari v. B.Babu Naidu, (2023) 4
MLJ 769, held that there can be no burial except at a
designated place.
(d) If W.P.No.44377 of 2025 and W.P.No.36402 of
2025 were dismissed on the ground that the
Collector's proceedings on the resolution dated
14.10.2025 were still pending, the same yardstick,
on the principle that what is sauce for the goose is
sauce for the gander , ought to have led to the
dismissal of W.P.No.37501 of 2025 as well, rather
than its disposal with substantive directions.
(f) The directions to exclude the land from the "cart
track" classification and to treat it as a burial ground
amount, in substance, to a final adjudication on the
character of the land, pre-empting the very
______________
Page 15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
reclassification exercise that the Collector himself
said would take up to six months, and prejudicing
the appellants' assertion of a right of access.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order
under appeal. It was submitted that the report of the Collector,
which was based on a physical inspection and revenue records
going back to the year 2000, was sufficient material for the learned
Single Judge to act upon; that the directions issued only preserve
the status quo pending the Town Panchayat's own reclassification
exercise; and that no party stands to lose anything, since the
reclassification itself remains to be carried out by the competent
revenue authorities.
14. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and gone
through the impugned order and the material placed before the
learned Single Judge.
15. The central question raised in the writ petitions as to
whether the lands in S.No.621/3 and S.No.628/8 were used as a
______________
Page 16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
burial ground by custom and long usage, notwithstanding its
revenue classification as a cart track, is a disputed question of fact.
16. The impleaded respondents in W.P.No.36402 of 2025
asserted a graveyard existing from time immemorial.
K.S.Balakrishnan and R.Kodeeswaran denied it in equally emphatic
terms, and asserted, in addition, that alternative pathways exist for
access to the adjoining lands, that a modern crematorium lies
within 1.5 kilometres, and that the claim of a graveyard is a device
to defeat their right of way.
17. Whether a custom of burial exists, its extent, its antiquity,
and its effect, if any, on a public cart track, are all questions that
turn on evidence, on witnesses who can be cross-examined, and on
documents that can be tested and weighed, not on a report
prepared at the instance of the court for the limited purpose of
ascertaining the facts on the ground.
18. We, however, make it clear that the aforesaid observation
is made without, in any way, discounting the value of the report of
______________
Page 17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
the Collector. An inspection report, however carefully prepared, is
not a substitute for a trial. Such report only records what the land
looks like today and what the revenue entries show. The same
cannot, by itself, settle a contest over a customary right said to bind
the State and third parties for seventy years, particularly when that
contest is bound up with rival claims of access, competing
representations and allegations of illegal destruction of graves on
one hand and illegal encroachment on the other.
19. Once the learned Single Judge himself recognised,
correctly in our view, that this was a case of long user and disputed
custom, the more prudent course would have been to leave the
question of the true character of the land to be worked out in a
properly instituted civil action, rather than to record a finding on it
in writ proceedings and follow that finding with enforcement
directions to the revenue authorities.
20. It is this step, from recording the facts to directing the
authorities to act upon them, that troubles us. Direction (iii) in
paragraph 67 of the impugned order goes beyond merely
______________
Page 18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
preserving the status quo. It directs the Tahsildar and the Revenue
Divisional Officer to act "with full vigour" on the resolution dated
14.10.2025 and to exclude the land from the classification of
"Government Poromboke - Cart Track". The appellants, who assert
a right of access over this stretch as a cart track, are directly
affected by such a direction and they were entitled to have that
question tried before the civil court and not decided against them in
a writ petition on the strength of an inspection report.
21. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single
Judge, having rightly noticed that a genuine dispute of fact lay at
the heart of these proceedings, ought not to have proceeded to
issue the directions contained in paragraph 67(i) to (iv) of the
impugned order. Those directions travel into territory that properly
belongs to a civil suit, where the parties can lead evidence on the
custom pleaded, on the resolutions of the year 2000 and of
14.10.2025, on the extent of user, and on the competing claims of
access.
22. We are told that pursuant to the impugned order, the land
______________
Page 19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
in question has been fenced. Undoing that on these appeals would
only return the parties to the very state of affairs that led to the
levelling of the graves and the litigation in the first place.
23. In such view of the matter, we make it clear that the
larger question, namely, the true character of the land, the
existence and extent of any customary right of burial, and the
competing claims of access over S.No.621/3 and S.No.628/8, shall
be worked out by the parties before the competent civil court,
where all of them will have a fair opportunity to plead their case
and lead evidence. Until the civil court considers an application for
interim protection, the parties shall maintain the status quo as it
stands today.
24. In the result:
(i) The writ appeals are dismissed. However, the
directions contained in paragraph 67(i) to (iv) of the
common order dated 11.02.2026 shall not be given
effect to any further.
(ii) The parties are at liberty to approach the
______________
Page 20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
competent civil court for appropriate reliefs, including
a declaration as to the character of the land in
S.No.621/3 and S.No.628/8 and the rights claimed
by them over it, within a period of eight weeks from
today.
(iii) Until orders are passed by the civil court on an
application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the parties shall
maintain the status quo as it stands as on the date of
this judgment, both as regards the fencing already
put up and as regards the use of the land.
(iv) The civil court before which such a suit is filed
shall consider the application for interim relief on its
own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced
by any observation made either in the order under
appeal or in this judgment, both of which have been
rendered only for the purpose of these proceedings.
(v) It shall be open to the District Collector to
continue with the administrative exercise of
measurement and enquiry pursuant to the resolution
______________
Page 21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
dated 14.10.2025, but any final reclassification of the
land shall abide by the outcome of the civil
proceedings, and shall not be acted upon to the
prejudice of any party's claim of access, without
leave of the civil court.
There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous
petitions stand closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
07.09.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
______________
Page 22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
To:
1. The District Collector
Erode District, Erode - 638 001.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Erode District, Erode.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode - 638 001, Erode District.
4. The Tahsildar
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
5. The Sub Registrar
Perundurai, Erode District.
6. The Executive Officer
Thiruvengadampalayam Village,
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
7. The Town Panchayat President
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
8. The Village Administrative Officer
Karumandisellipalayam Panchayat,
Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.
______________
Page 23 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )

2026:MHC:3668
W.A.No.2295 of 2026 etc.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sasi)
W.A.Nos.2295, 1876 and 1364 of 2026

07.09.2026
______________
Page 24 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:45 pm )