WP/36593/2026 of S.M.M. ANWAR ALI Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to the on 10 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The final notice issued by the Tahsildar, Chidambaram for evicting the writ petitioner from Survey Nos.221/11 and 221/13, Pallipadai Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, is challenged in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lands in the above said survey numbers were purchased on 22.11.1949 by one Mohammed Saliha Sahib and Mohammed Mustafa Sahib. Their descendants with an intention of carrying out charitable purposes, started a school in the year 1993-1994. While so, the patta issued in their favour was cancelled in the year 2019, pursuant to two wit petitions filed regarding classifying the said land as “Kuttai Poramboke” and to evict the petitioner herein.

3. The writ petitioner has also filed a civil suit seeking for declaration to classify the land in R.S.Nos.221/5, 221/7, 221/8, 221/11, 221/13 and 221/15 as “Natham” and pass a mandatory declaration directing the necessary corrections in the revenue records. Furthermore, a relief sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the Tahsildar, Chidambaram,

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:30 pm )

Sub-Collector, Chidambaram and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Cuddalore District, from interfering with their peaceful possession.

4. That apart, the writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the proceedings of eviction, preferred a revision petition before the Government under Section 10-C of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, as early as 15.10.2025. While the said revision petition was pending, the impugned notice was issued on 20.08.2026, directing the removal of the encroahment by 29.08.2026.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the revision petition is pending, the respondent authorities ought not to have issued the impugned notice, in view of the protection granted by this Court in W.P.No.19421 of 2026 dated 13.05.2026.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that this is the fourth round of litigation, which initially commenced with a writ petition filed by the 4th respondent herein. The issue regarding the encroachment upon the water body has already been considered and decided in an earlier round of litigation that went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which held against the encroachers. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was served with an eviction notice. Challenging the same, the

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:30 pm )

appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was dismissed. The revision petition filed challenging the eviction order of the Tahsildar under Section 6 dated 25.07.2025 as well as the subsequent order of the Collector in the appeal, is pending before the Government. Meanwhile, the 4th respondent has initiated contempt proceedings against the officials for not carrying out the order of the Court removing the encroachment from the water body. Hence, the present final notice dated 20.08.2026 was served on the writ petitioner, which has been challenged on the ground that no action should be taken during the pendency of the revision petition and the civil suit.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the patta wrongly given to the writ petitioner was cancelled as early as 2019. The structures constructed by the writ petitioner on the water body have already been ordered to be evicted by this Court on two prior occasions in Writ Petition No.34552 of 2018 and 22275 of 2019. Due to the inaction of the official respondents, a contempt petition has been instituted and the same is pending. He further submitted that the civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the revenue authorities is, on the face of it, not maintainable. Furthermore, an encroacher on a water body cannot be granted relief protecting their illegal occupation merely on the grounds of a pending revision petition.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:30 pm )

8. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the enquiry in the revision petition has already been completed and no action will be taken pursuant to the impugned final notice till the disposal of the said revision petition.

9. Taking note of the fact that the revenue authorities have identified Survey Nos.221/11 as “Arasu Poramboke Kuttai” and 221/13 as “Arasu Poramboke Natham” a water body and the petitioner has constructed a building and an arch on the said water body, this Court observed that the final notice was issued after multiple rounds of litigation and directions of this Court. Though the final notice was issued prior to the disposal of the revision petition, the fact alone does not render the notice illegal. Therefore, as stated by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, the effect of the impugned notice shall take effect only after the disposal of the revision petition.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rpl

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:30 pm )

To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster management Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09.

2. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore- 607 001.

3. The Tahsildar Chidambaram Taluk, Chidambaram- 608 001.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:30 pm )

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. rpl Writ Petition No. 36593 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos. 41008 & 41010 of 2026 10-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:30 pm )