Madras High Court orders inquiry into officials’ delay in removing waterbody encroachments

The petitioner sought a direction to survey and demarcate her patta lands and to restrain further proceedings under Forms II and III until that survey was completed.

She had previously brought proceedings concerning the survey and proposed removal of encroachments from a water body, including petitions challenging show-cause notices and seeking a survey.

The respondents stated that the relevant boundaries had already been surveyed and demarcated pursuant to earlier court orders, and that the petitioner’s survey request was rejected; her lands were held under joint pattas.

The Court also noted that the authorities had initiated enforcement action to remove encroachments from the water body.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a further survey and demarcation of her patta lands, together with a restraint on enforcement proceedings, despite earlier proceedings and the respondents’ position that the land had already been surveyed.

2. Whether the present petition amounted to an abuse of process intended to delay removal of encroachments from the water body.

3. Whether the delay in initiating enforcement action warranted an inquiry into possible official dereliction or negligence.

The Court considered the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and relied on its earlier directions concerning survey and removal of encroachments, including the order in W.P. No. 13780 of 2025, which relied on the Full Bench decision in T.K. Shanmugam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2015) 5 Mad LW 397.

It treated the statutory procedure for notice and consideration of the petitioner’s explanation as having been followed in the prior proceedings.

The Court further stated that a claim of title or ownership should be pursued before the competent civil court.

It also held that repeated proceedings seeking substantially similar relief should not be used to obstruct enforcement action.

The Court found that the survey and demarcation had already been undertaken pursuant to earlier directions and that the petitioner had previously been given opportunities to participate in the survey process and respond to notices.

In that context, it viewed the renewed request for a survey and a stay of enforcement as an attempt to prolong proceedings to remove encroachments from the water body, rather than as grounds for further writ relief.

However, because enforcement action had commenced more than one and a half years after the Court’s earlier direction, the Court directed an inquiry into whether the delay involved official lapse, dereliction of duty, or negligence.

It directed the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, to inquire into any lapse, dereliction of duty, or negligence in initiating enforcement action and, if established, to identify the responsible officials and initiate suitable action.