Madras HC Says Salem Officials Must Prosecute Repeat Encroachers And Protect Public Land

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking consideration of his representation dated 17 October 2025 and removal of alleged encroachments by Respondents 8–10 in Survey No. 58/11, Panamarathupatti Village, including protection of the pathway to Poomalai Murugan Temple.

He submitted that encroachments had recurred even after removal.

The State submitted that the re-encroachers had been evicted and that, by proceedings dated 11 September 2026, the Revenue Inspector and Village Administrative Officer had been directed to maintain continuous monitoring and vigilance over the land.

The Court applied the principles governing relief under Article 226 and mandamus, as invoked by the petitioner.

Authorities are duty-bound to prosecute persons who repeatedly encroach, in accordance with law, and to maintain and protect public land for the benefit of local residents.

The Court noted the petitioner’s allegation of repeated encroachment but accepted the State’s submission that the re-encroachers had been evicted and that monitoring and vigilance had been ordered.

In light of those steps, it did not grant a further direction to remove the encroachments.

Instead, it observed that any further re-encroachment should be met with prosecution in accordance with law and emphasized the authorities’ continuing duty to protect the public land.

It made no further specific removal or police-protection order and awarded no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.