Authorities Must Decide Canal Realignment Representation After Hearing Both Affected Landowners

Facts

The petitioner claimed ownership of agricultural lands in Kandikattuvalasu Village, Erode District, and stated that an irrigation channel had long passed through his patta land in Survey No. 1191/6.

Source reference: p. 2–3

He sought realignment of the channel, including cancellation of the acquisition of land in Survey No. 1192/2 and use of the existing channel route.

Source reference: p. 2–3, 5

After proceedings under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and an appeal concerning alleged encroachment, the petitioner maintained that his earlier representation—forwarded by the District Collector to the relevant officials on 1 October 2021—remained undecided.

Source reference: p. 3–5

The respondents stated that the proposal could be considered after the petitioner supplied the necessary revenue documents and WRD provided a technical feasibility report.

Source reference: p. 5

The petitioner subsequently submitted the required documents to the District Collector on 17 May 2025; they were received on 23 May 2025.

Source reference: p. 6

Issues

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to dispose of the petitioner’s pending representation seeking realignment of the canal.

Source reference: p. 2, 5–6

2. Whether the petitioner and the sixth respondent should be afforded an opportunity of hearing before that representation is decided.

Source reference: p. 6

Law Applied

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to address the petitioner’s limited request for a decision on a pending representation.

Source reference: p. 2

The judgment did not determine the merits of the proposed land transfer or realignment, and it cited no precedent or substantive legal rule governing that proposal.

Source reference: p. 5–6

Sections 6, 7, and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, arose in the background of the encroachment proceedings but were not the basis for the Court’s direction.

Source reference: p. 3–4

Reasoning

The respondents’ counter affidavit indicated that the petitioner’s proposal could be considered upon receipt of the requisite revenue documents and a technical feasibility report. As the petitioner had since submitted the documents, the Court considered it appropriate to require the competent respondents to decide the pending representation rather than adjudicate the realignment proposal itself.

Source reference: p. 5–6

Given that the decision could affect the sixth respondent, the Court directed that both parties be heard.

Source reference: p. 5–6

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondents 1 to 5 to decide the petitioner’s representation referred to in the District Collector’s letter dated 1 October 2021, after hearing the petitioner and the sixth respondent, within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Source reference: p. 6