Madras High CourtEnvironmental LawAdministrative and Public Law

School Building On Noombal Pond Must Be Removed Within 12 Weeks, Madras HC Directs Officials

PROF. DR.S.THAMIZHARASANv.STATE OF TAMILNADU

School Building On Noombal Pond Must Be Removed Within 12 Weeks, Madras HC Directs Officials. PROF. DR.S.THAMIZHARASAN vs STATE OF TAMILNADU. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the official respondents were required to take enforcement action to remove the identified encroachment and unauthorized construction on the water body

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing official respondents 1 to 9 to initiate enforcement action under the relevant statute and rules, remove the encroachments from the water body, and protect it. The exercise was to be completed within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

It also directed

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

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to remove alleged encroachments by the tenth respondent, ACS Medical College and Hospital, from a pond in Survey No. 35, Noombal Village, and restore it as a pond under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007.

pp. 2–3

The Tahsildar’s status report stated that a survey based on revenue records identified encroachments and that the Field Measurement Book showed a pond in the north-eastern part of the survey number. The report further stated that land classified as a water body had been used for a school building operated by the tenth respondent

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the official respondents were required to take enforcement action to remove the identified encroachment and unauthorized construction on the water body

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether the identified encroachment on the water body could be regularized

p. 4

03Law Applied

The Court referred to the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, and the relevant rules in force as the framework for enforcement action against encroachments

p. 2, 4

It held that water bodies must be protected by the State and that construction or encroachment in a water body cannot be regularized

p. 4

04Reasoning

The Tahsildar’s report established, on the basis of revenue records and the Field Measurement Book, both the existence of a pond in Survey No. 35 and the use of land classified as a water body for a building operated by the tenth respondent

p. 3

On those reported findings, the Court concluded that the Tahsildar had a duty to initiate enforcement action and that the official respondents were required to follow the applicable statutory procedures to remove the encroachment and protect the water body

pp. 3–4

05Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing official respondents 1 to 9 to initiate enforcement action under the relevant statute and rules, remove the encroachments from the water body, and protect it. The exercise was to be completed within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

p. 4

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

p. 4
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

PROF. DR.S.THAMIZHARASANvsSTATE OF TAMILNADU

Madras High Court · October 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment