Facts
The petitioner sought a direction requiring the authorities to consider his representation dated 9 January 2026, conduct a field survey of land classified as a Kuttai in T.S. No. 172, Thiruvanmiyur Village, and remove any encroachment found. He alleged that the fourth respondent had encroached on the land by constructing compound walls.
Source reference: p. 1–2The Tahsildar’s status report stated that an inspection on 30 June 2026 found no encroachment and that the land was recorded as Government Circar Poramboke, with an extent of 00.05.54.5 hectares and an Adangal classification of Kuttai.
Source reference: p. 2–3Issues
Whether the authorities should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and conduct a field survey to identify and remove any encroachment on T.S. No. 172.
Source reference: p. 1–2Whether further relief was warranted when the authorities’ inspection found no encroachment on the land.
Source reference: p. 2–4Law Applied
The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: p. 1Authorities must ensure that Government Poramboke land remains free from encroachment and, if any encroachment is identified, initiate enforcement action in accordance with the applicable procedures and remove it expeditiously.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Tahsildar’s status report recorded that officials had inspected the land and found no encroachment in T.S. No. 172.
Source reference: p. 2–3On that basis, the Court held that no further consideration of the requested relief was required. It nevertheless directed the authorities to ensure that Government Poramboke land is not encroached upon and to take procedural enforcement action if an encroachment is identified.
Source reference: p. 3–4Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, finding no basis for further relief in light of the inspection report that no encroachment had been identified.
It directed the authorities to act if any encroachment on the Government Poramboke land is identified, following the prescribed procedures and removing it as expeditiously as possible. No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 3–4Original Court PDF
G.MAGESH KUMARvsTHE COLLECTOR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
