Madras High Court
Shruthi Enclave Welfare vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 6 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2026:MHC:1368
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P. Nos.32596 of 2014, 2276, 404, 16, 24, 2597, 29, 32, 35, 397, 401,
402, 405 and 23 of 2019 and 32533, 25883, 25886, 26105, 26602, 26688,
26877, 27349, 27613, 27650, 27659, 27686, 28155, 28174, 28182,
28202, 28214, 33261, 30748, 30973, 31231, 32397, 32400, 32402,
32495, 32498, 32503, 32505, 32509, 32511, 32514, 32517, 32520,
32523, 32526, 32527, 32531, 32536, 32538, 32539, 33262, 33283,
33287, 33290, 33293, 33295, 34531, 34535, 34537, 34539, 34541,
34544, 34548, 34550, 34616, 34619, 34623, 34798, 34800 and 25865 of
2018 and 24500 of 2017
and
WMP Nos.32189, 32150, 31846, 30062, 30087, 30113, 30115, 30327,
30969, 31061, 31218, 31221, 32210, 32214, 32813, 32818, 32835,
32839, 32850, 32854, 32886, 32892, 32900, 32906, 32190, 32208,
35890, 36107, 36428, 37591, 37593, 37597, 37709, 37712, 37717,
37719, 37720, 37722, 37723, 37724, 37728, 37731, 37735, 37736,
37738, 37740, 37743, 37744, 37745, 38591, 38593, 38628, 38631,
38637, 38640, 38643, 40068, 40069, 40070, 40072, 40075, 40078,
40080, 40082, 40129, 40132, 40358, 40360 and 40363 of 2018 and
25873, 25874 and 33666 of 2017 and 2871, 32, 17, 22, 2518, 25, 29, 35,
396, 401, 406, 409 and 411 of 2019 and MP.Nos.2 of 2014(2 Nos.)
W.P.No. 32596 of 2014:
Shruthi Enclave Welfare Association,
Rep. by its President,
C.M.Victor Gregory,
Dhanalakshmipuram, Singanallur Post,
Coimbatore. .. Petitioner
1/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore – 18.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Bhavani Sagar – 638 451.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Irrigation Sub-Division,
Coimbatore – 641 001.
5.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Coimbatore,
Coimbatore.
6.The Member Secretary,
Local Planning Authority, Tatabad,
Coimbatore – 12.
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore – 18.
8.Vanajothi
9.Rajendran
10.Gopal
11.Farmers Association,
Rep by its General Secretary,
P.Kandasamy,
2/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
76, Kaveri Nilayam,
Old Post Office Road,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.32596 of 2014: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3 rd respondent by proceedings in
VaPa/EVAA3/Co.73/66m/06 dated 14.02.2006 and
VaPa/EVAA3/Co.73/25m dated 22.01.2007 ending with the order of the
4th respondent in letter No 58/2007 dated 28.05.2007 and Quash the same
and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation
of the Petitioner Association dated 24.08.2010.
W.P.Nos. For Petitioners For Respondents
W.P.Nos.2276, Mr.Vijay Narayan, Mr.V.Ravi,
401, 402, 404, Senior Counsel Special Government
405, 23, 32, 35, for Mr.Saravana Sowmiyan Pleader
29, 16, 24, 2597 for R1 to R4, R6 & R7 in
& 397 of 2019, WP.No.32596 of 2014
for R1 to R5 in
W.P.Nos.24500 WP.No.24500 of 2017
of 2017,
for R1 to R4 in
W.P.No.30748 of 2018
W.P.Nos.32596
of 2014
Mr.K.Venkatasubban
for R8 in WP.No.32596
W.P.Nos.32533, of 2014
32536, 32538,
32539, 33287, Mr.C.R.Prasanan
33290, 33293, for R11 in W.P.No.32596
34623, 32514, of 2014
32520, 33261,
3/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
33262, 34800,
30748, 34548,
34550, 34616,
28214, 33295,
34531, 34535,
34541, 34544,
34798, 28182,
28202, 32495, Mr.K.Mahesh, Standing
32498, 32503, Counsel for Coimbatore
28174, 32531, Corporation
32523, 33283,
34619, 32505,
32509, 32511,
34537, 34539,
32526, 32527,
32517 & 28155
of 2018
W.P.Nos.23397, Mr.S.Arunachalam
25865, 25883, For Mr.S.Sithirai Anandam
25886, 26105,
26602, 26688,
26877, 27349,
27613, 27650,
27659, 27686,
30973, 31231,
32400 & 32402
of 2018
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
This is a batch of writ petitions involving the interests of owners of
residential units in ‘Shruthi Enclave’ at Singanallur, Coimbatore. There
are three main Writ petitions espousing common causes, filed by the
Shruthi Enclave Welfare Association (in short, ‘Association’) and the
4/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
remaining 72 Writ petitions have been filed by individual owners of the
houses seeking to quash notices dated 04.09.2018 issued under Section
296 (1) of the Coimbatore Corporation Act, 1981 and Section 296 (2) of
the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1987 whereunder,
individual units in Shruthi Enclave have been described as unauthorized
buildings liable to be demolished, and the petitioners have been given 72
hours for tendering a valid explanation objecting to the proposal, under
threat of prosecution and coercive action by the Corporation.
2. In WP.No.32596 of 2014, the Association seeks a quash of
orders dated 14.02.2006 and 22.01.2007 of the Executive Engineer and
Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD)/R3 and
R4 respectively, seeking a consequential direction to the District
Collector, Coimbatore/R2 to consider the representation of the
Association dated 24.08.2010.
3. The second Writ petition has been instituted in 2017,
WP.No.24500 of 2017, challenging proceedings of the Commissioner,
Town and Country Planning/R3 and the Member Secretary, Coimbatore
Local Planning Authority/R4 dated 27.07.2017 and 28.08.2017.
4. The third Writ petition has been instituted in 2019, W.P.No.2276
of 2019, and challenges proceedings of the Commissioner, Corporation of
Coimbatore/sole respondent dated 04.09.2018.
5/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
5. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned
Senior Counsel for Mr.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel for the
Association as well as the individual petitioners. Their submissions are as
follows.
6. Shruthi Enclave was conceived as a ‘group housing project’ by
the landowners who had applied for planning permission in that category.
The Coimbatore Corporation had accorded, as early as on 29.04.2004,
permission to the landowners to form a culvert and pathway in respect of
the Canals that ran through their land, at their own cost. The no-objection
granted on 29.04.2004 was after an inspection by the authority, of the
entire area.
7. In the aforesaid proceedings, the Assistant Executive Engineer,
PWD has noted that there was no agricultural activities in the lands or in
the surrounding areas and there was no water irrigation facility for several
years. Subsequent thereto, approval had been granted by the
Commissioner, Town and Country Planning on 23.08.2004 for
construction of 137 dwelling units, fixing specific boundaries in the area
to be developed. The petitioners have purchased the plots as early as in
2004 onwards and have been in occupation since then.
8. While so, action was taken in 2006 as against one of the
landowners on a representation by an association of Farmers on the
6/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
ground that they were unable to irrigate the area, and in any event, culvert
and pathway had not been constructed by the petitioners and hence the
permission granted in 2004 ought to be cancelled. This had led to the
passing of orders dated 14.02.2006 and 22.01.2007 cancelling the
permission granted by the PWD in 2004 leading to the institution of the
Writ petitions in 2014 by the Association.
9. In fact, the Association had also made a representation on
24.08.2010 making some suggestions for amicable resolution of the
matter, as a via media, instead of the extreme step of cancellation of the
permissions granted. No action was taken on that representation and
instead, orders came to be passed cancelling the technical sanction on
27.07.2017, planning permission on 20.09.2017 and the building
permission on 20.02.2018
10. As a sequitur thereto, notices came to be issued by the
Corporation classifying the units as unauthorised construction and calling
for their demolition. The series of orders as aforesaid have come to be
challenged by the petitioners. All those orders take their sustenance from
the initial two orders passed in 2007 cancelling the permission granted in
2004 for conversion of the water channel by the PWD.
11. Mr.Vijay Narayanan would firstly argue that the impugned
notices are contrary to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
7/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
Act, 1971. Action in terms of Section 54 is contemplated only during the
currency of the construction activity, and after completion of the
construction, it is only Section 56 that is applicable. Hence, the proper
provision to have been invoked in the present case would have been
Section 56 and not Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act. He
would accede to the position that the petitioners have not constructed the
culvert as undertaken by them initially. However, they are willing to do
so now and remedy the error.
12. He refers to a representation made on 19.06.2017 by the
Petitioner Association wherein they accede to the deviations from the
approved plan in the constructions. The tenor of the representation is that
they should be permitted to rectify the deviations to the maximum extent
possible after consultations with the Local Planning Authority. They also
refer to a misunderstanding by the authorities in the classification of the
project, as according to them, the approval granted was under the caption
of ‘Group Housing’, whereas, the authorities are viewing the project as
independent plots.
13. In conclusion, the Petitioners would submit that the houses
have been purchased from out of their hard earned savings, the individual
petitioners are senior citizens and hence, the impugned orders have
caused them great prejudice.
8/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
14. On the basis of these submissions, learned Senior Counsel
would urge that the Writ petitions be allowed, and the impugned orders
be set aside.
15. Mr.Mahesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Coimbatore Corporation would argue that the impugned notices have
taken note of the violations committed by the builder/landowners, of
which the petitioners are well aware. The permission granted in 2004 for
forming a culvert and pathway in the Canals was fundamentally incorrect
as there could be no usurpation of the water body to the detriment of the
general public, including, and specifically, the farmers. The petitioners
have themselves conceded to the deviations under their representation
dated 19.06.2017.
16. On instructions, he would submit that having regard to the
length of residence by the petitioners, they may be permitted to approach
the Corporation for suitable relief and the authorities would be willing to
consider the representations in accordance with law. However, he would
reiterate that proceedings dated 14.02.2006 and 22.01.2007 cancelling the
permission for conversion of the water body into a pathway and culvert
set out the correct position in law, and must not be interfered with.
17. Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel who appears for the Farmers
Association/R11 in W.P.No.32596 of 2014 is vociferous in support of the
9/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
orders passed on 14.02.2006, 22.01.2007 and 28.05.2007. His
submissions are that the water body that runs through the Shruthi Enclave
is also a source of water for irrigation of the adjoining lands. He
represents the Farmer’s Association and states that they are seriously
aggrieved by the permission granted to the petitioners to put up a pathway
and culvert over the water channel. It is indeed providential that they
have not complied with this condition.
18. As regards the stand of the petitioners that there is no water that
runs in the Canals, he would object to the statement as being incorrect. In
any event, he would take a broader stand relying on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah V. District Collector, Chittor
District and Ors1, Full bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam V. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors2 and a Division Bench of this Court in A.Ganesan V.
District Revenue Officer, Tiruvallur3 stating that utmost protection should
be given to water bodies in the Country and in the State.
19. Even assuming that there was no water running in the channel,
the bed of the water course continues to vest in the State and cannot be
handed over to a private party for their own use. The stand of the
Farmers’ association thus aligns with that of the Coimbatore Corporation.
1 (2019) 4 SCC 500
2 2015 SCC Online Mad 9343
3 2025-2-Writ L.R.478
10/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
20. We have heard all parties in detail and perused the records and
cases cited.
21. We recapitulate the facts briefly in order to set the legal issues
in context. Shruthi Enclave was conceived as a housing complex in the
early 2000s and sits on an extent of 8.05 acres. While the petitioners have
argued that the project was conceived as Group Housing/Gated
community, the Corporation is arguing that there was no such
classification available at that juncture in time and the project was
conceived of as a layout comprising independent houses.
22. It is true, that the site plan submitted by the builder uses the
phrase ‘group housing’. However, despite a detailed discussion on this
aspect of the matter, we are unable to come to ascertain as to the
classification/head under which the project was approved. The approval
dated 23.08.2004 issued by the Commissioner, Town and Country
Planning for ‘construction of buildings consisting 137 dwelling units’ has
been granted relaxing Development Rule 8 (VIII). Mr.Mahesh is however
unable to confirm what Development Rule 8 (VIII) is and says that
despite his best efforts, there is no such rule available on the record.
Approval dated 23.08.2024 is extracted below:-
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER, TOWN
AND COUNTRY PLANNING, 807, ANNA SALAI,
CHENNAI 600 002.
11/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batchPresent :- Mr.Pa. Anand, IAS.,
Date 23.8.2004
Na.Ka.No.20735/04BA1
SUB: Buildings – Coimbatore Local Planning Authority/
Municipal Corporation, Uppilipalayam village, Survey
No.534 part, 540/2A, 2B, 541, 551/2B part, 553 part, 554
part in Singanallur Extension and Development Scheme
No.11, 12 extent – 8.05 acres, Grant of Approval for
construction of 137 dwelling units – Regarding.
Ref: 1) Letter of the Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local
Planning Authority in No.2569/04 dated 4.8.04.
2) Letter of the Assistant Commissioner, East Zone,
Coimbatore Corporation in No.6146/04 dated 16.7.04.
3) Applications of the Petitioners Mr.R. Rajendran,
Mr.R.Nanjappan, Mr.Mathi, J.Sridevi dated 29.7.04 and
23.8.04.
ORDER:-
Coimbatore Local Planning Authority/ Municipal
Corporation, PLOT situated in Uppilipalayam Village,
Survey No.534 part, 540/2A, 2B, 541, 551/2B part, 553
part, 554 part in Singanallur Extension and Development
Scheme No.11, 12. Boundaries are fixed as
“ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPORSTUV” is approved, condition
in Development rule 8(VIII) is relaxed and approval is
granted for construction of buildings consisting 137
dwelling units.
Approval is granted by relaxation of development rule
8(III) affecting the proposed construction and for grant of
Project approval.
The approved Building Plan numbered as BP/TCC
No.106/2004 and sent.
CONDITIONS:
1) As agreed: by the Petitioners in their Affidavit the 60
feet wide scheme road situated within the plot must be laid,
12/36https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
tar topped and handed over to Coimbatore Municipal
Corporation.
2) Solar water heating system must be installed in the
residential buildings.
3) The Proposed parking space earmarked in the plan must
be utilized only for the said purpose.
4) The open area spaces in the plot must be maintained in
the same state and the community open area spaces shall
be maintained by the Resident Welfare Association.
5) There shall not be any deviations from the approved
building plan, in the case of any modifications prior
approval must be obtained from this office.
6) Rain water harvesting facilities must be made as shown
in the approved building plan and in accordance with GO
No.138 dated 11.10.2002 of the Department of Municipal
Administration and Drinking Water Supply.
7) The waste water discharged from the proposed building
must be disposed by private vehicles and safe drinking
water facilities must be provided to the residents at the cost
of the petitioners.
The stamped plans are attached and sent herewith.
The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning
Authority is requested to issue further orders to the
petitioner.
The petitioner is informed to approach the Member
Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority for
further orders.
The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning
Authority is requested to acknowledge the receipt of the
approved Draft Action Order Letter and plans.
Sd/-
23.8.04
Commissioner, Town and Country Planning
Enclosures:- plans 2 sets
To
13/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning
Authority,
Coimbatore
Copy:-
1) Assistant Commissioner, East Zone, Coimbatore
Corporation, Coimbatore.
2) Mr.R.Rajendran, Mr.R.Nanjappan, Mr.Mathi, J.Sridevi
16, Shruthi Avenue
Aruna Nagar, Coimbatore – 17.
23. Hence, the mere nomenclature used by the builder as ‘group
housing’ may not amount to much, as none of the parties before us are
able to throw any light on whether the Rules at that point in time provided
for a gated community or group housing. A copy of the Development
Control Rules relatable to Coimbatore have been shown to us. These rules
are of the year 2010 and we are given to understand that prior to this date,
it was only the Local Body Rules that were applicable and there was no
provision therein, for a gated community or group housing.
24. At the conclusion of a detailed discussion, we are left no clearer
as to whether there was a provision in the then Rules to have granted
permission for a gated community or group housing and in the absence of
any clarity on this aspect, we do not wish to render any finding in this
regard.
25. Moreover, the petitioners have themselves given a
representation on 19.06.2017 wherein, they accede to deviations from the
approved plan. Inter alia they say that ‘instead of group houses, the
14/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
promoter has constructed as independent houses’. We had specifically
posed a query to Mr.Vijay Narayan in regard to the undivided share of the
land that had been transferred to each petitioner and the arrangement of
the layout in respect of the roads and pathways in between the houses.
The petitioners are not able to provide any clarity in this regard.
26. We see from the approvals granted that one of the conditions
related to handing over a portion of the property for development of a 60
feet scheme road. The petitioners have, admittedly, donated land.
However, the Government has been unable to develop the road as it has
not been able to acquire the land on either side of the portion gifted by the
petitioners. Hence, as on date, the 60 feet scheme road is yet to be laid.
27. There are private parties to this Writ petition who have also
raised disputes in regard to the access to their properties. Since we are
told that suits are pending inter se the petitioners and those parties,
Vanajothi and Gopal, we do not wish to say anything in this regard and
leave it to the parties to sort out their issues before the Civil Court.
28. As far as the challenge in the 2017 and 2019 Writ petitions are
concerned, by consent of the parties, we set aside the impugned
proceedings dated 27.07.2017, 28.08.2017 and 04.09.2018 and, in light of
the representation of the Association which is dated 19.06.2017, we direct
the Coimbatore Corporation to intimate the petitioners with regard to
15/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
what the deviations are, and the action to be taken to remedy the same.
Let these notices intimating them of the deviations and the required
action be sent within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a
copy of this order granting the petitioners reasonable time to correct the
deviations. It is made clear that the official respondents are at liberty to
pursue the matter and in the event necessary rectifications are not made,
to take action in accordance with law.
29. As regard W.P.No.32596 of 2014, after a detailed hearing, we
crystallize the following two issues as arising for our consideration.
i) Whether the permission granted by the Public Works Department
on 20.07.2004 to form a culvert and pathway in the Canals, in
SF.Nos.535, 540/1, 551/1, 539/2 and 550 is correct, and
ii) Whether Shruthi Enclave is to be treated as a gated
community/group housing, entitled to build a wall around the layout.
30. The first issue relates to the permission granted on 20.07.2004
for formation of culvert and pathway in the canal. We have been given a
map of the entire area including Shruthi Enclave and the adjourning plots.
Admittedly, one portion of the Sanganoor Canal runs through and abuts
Shruthi Enclave. The boundaries on the map provided reveal to us that
the pathway of the canal runs almost along the periphery of Shruthi
Enclave. Since the petitioners have submitted that there was no water in
16/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
this Canal for many years, we wanted to ascertain the position on the
ground, and on 17.02.2026, passed the following order.
Heard in part.
2.Three issues that immediately appeal to us are:
(i) difficulty in access for those Survey Numbers that
are in the vicinity of Shruthi Enclave. Such survey num-
bers shall be identified by R2, R3 and R5 and their offi-
cials.
(ii) whether by virtue of the Vaaikaal not being main-
tained, there is any difficulty or interruption in water
supply to the surrounding areas. The officials of the
Revenue/Corporation/Public Works Department, shall
undertake a survey of the area and file a report in this
regard. The authorities will also ascertain whether
there is any inlet and outlet to the water channel that
runs through the Shruthi Enclave.
(iii) whether cultivation is going on in any of the areas
in the vicinity of Shruthi Enclave. The authorities as ad-
umbrated in the points above shall cause inspection and
file a report.
3.The petitioner and the private parties are at liberty to fol-
low up with the officials and ensure their participation in the
above exercise.
4.List on 23.02.2026 to receive the report.
31. A report has been filed by the respondents in pursuance of our
order as aforesaid. Report dated 21.02.2026, extracted below, is clear that
there is no inlet or outlet to the water channel that runs through Shruthi
Enclave.
REPORT FILED BY THE COIMBATORE CORPORATION
….
1) I am the Assistant Commissioner of the Coimbatore
17/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
City Municipal Corporation, East Zone and as such I am well
acquainted with the facts of the case from the records
maintained therein.
2) I state that I am filing this report as per the direction
of this Hon’ble Court dated 17.02.2026 in the above Writ
Petitions.
3) I state that pursuant to the directions of this Hon’ble
Court the officials of the Coimbatore Corporation, Revenue
Department, Water Resources Department conducted a joint
inspection on 20.02.2026 to find out the ground reality and
submit a report to the directions of this Hon’ble Court as
mentioned below:
i. Difficulty in access for those Survey Numbers that are in
the vicinity of Shruthi Enclave.
Sruthi Enclave is a Residential Housing Colony
situated in Coimbatore District, Coimbatore South Taluk,
Uppilipalayam Village, Old S.F. Nos: 534/ Part, 540/2A,2B,
541, 551/2BPart, 553/Part & 554/Part, T.S Ward: AD(30),
T.S. Block: 20, T.S. Nos: 3/2A,3,4, 5/2,3А,3B,5,6,
7/2,3,11/2A2,2C, 17/1,2,3,4, 20/8.
The Vaikal passing through Sruthi enclave is situated
in Old S.F. Nos:535, 539/2, 540/1, 551/1 & 552 T.S. No.s:4,
5/1, 7/1, 9/2 &15. The vaikal in the south of the Sruthi
enclave is situated in S.F. No: 550, T.S.
No: 6. Sruthi Enclave is bounded by the T.S. No:
3/2B,5/2,7,8, 9/1, 11/2B,2D1, 16, 18, 20&25/1, 3. T.S. No.s:
3/2B, 11/2B,2D1&16 have direct access to public road.
T.S. No.s: 5/2,7,8, 9/1, 18, 20&25/1,3 do not have
direct access to public road. They have to use the roads of the
Sruthi Enclave layout to reach the public road, but the Sruthi
Enclave Residents constructed compound wall and entry
restricted to the adjacent land owners.
Sl.No. T.S.No. Owner as per Revenue Record
1 5 / 2 1.Ranganayagiammal W/o.
Krishnasamy naidu
2. Vanajothi W/o. Duraisamy
2 5 / 7 Vanajothi W/o Duraisamy
3 5 / 8 G.D.Rajkumar S/o. G.Duraisamy18/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
4 9 / 1 1.Kasiviswanathan Chettiar S/o
Subbaiyan Chettiar
2.Murugasakthi Preethi D/o Natarajan
5 18 / 0 1.Janardhanan S/o Rangasamy
2.Gopal S/o (Late) Narayanan
3.Nagendran S/o.Palanisamy
4.Ramesh S/o Palanisamy
5.Pappathi D/o Palanisamy
6 20 / 0 1.Namagiri Lakshmi W/o
K.Ramalingam Iyer
2.V Usha D/o. K.Viswanathan Iyer
3.Chandrika W/o. Kethar
4.Sanjay Kethar S/o Kethar
5.Anuja Kethar D/o Kethar
6.Asha W/o. V.Ramkumar
7.Vinesh S/o. V.Ramkumar
8.Nikesh S/o. V.Ramkumar
9. R.Tiyambak Ramalingam S/o.
K.Ramalingam Iyer
10. J Neela D/o K.Ramalingam Iyer
11. R Murali Ramalingam S/o.
K.Ramalingam Iyer
12. R.Sathish Ramalingam S/o.
K.Ramalingam Iyer
13. Janaki W/o K Subramaniam Iyer
14. K.S Ramesh S/o K Subramaniam
Iyer
15. S.Srivatsan S/o. K Subramaniam
Iyer
16. Kamala W/o K Viswanathan Iyer
19/36https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
7 25 / 1 1. V V Subramaniam S/o
Venkatachalam
2.Gopal S/o (Late) Narayanan
3. Rames S/o Palanisamy
4. Gayathri Devi D/o Palanisamy
5. Parimalam D/o Palanisamy
6. Nagendran S/o Palanisamy
8 25 / 3 1. R Janardhanan S/o Rangasamy
2.Manoj Prabhu S/o Venkatesan
3.Mahendran S/o Venkatesan
ii. Whether by virtue of the Vaaikaal not being maintained,
there is any difficulty or interruption in water supply to the
surrounding areas?
There is no irrigation happening in Sanganoor Pallam,
the aforementioned channels are branch channels of
Sanganoor Pallam. The above said branch channels, have
been blocked in numerous areas and have partly become roads
Since there is no irrigation happening in main channel
i.e., Sanganoor Pallam, the question of interruption of water
supply for agriculture does not arise.
Whether there is any inlet and outlet to the water channel
that runs through the Sruthi Enclave.
Currently there is no inlet and outlet to the water
channel (T.S.No.s:4, 5/1, 7/1, 9/2 &15) that runs through the
Sruthi Enclave.
iii. Whether cultivation is going on in any of the areas in the
vicinity of Shruthi Enclave.
The cultivation is being carried out in Old S.F. No: 542,
T.S. No:18 Part by Mr Gopal, Mr Ramesh and their family
using bore well water only. The other areas are barren land.
20/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
4) I further submit that the original approval is
cancelled due to deviation of the approved layout plan and the
residents of Sruthi Enclave not permitting the adjacent land
owners to use the road inside the layout. The access to the
adjacent land owners cannot be denied on the pretext of gated
community concept. The compound wall has to be removed to
permit the adjacent land owners to get access to their adjacent
lands. Moreover, most of the buildings have been constructed
violating the approved plan and subsequently the layout plan
itself cancelled due to deviations. The copy of the joint
inspection report signed by the officials who conducted the
joint inspection is enclosed along with this report.
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to receive this report and issue further direction as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and pass such further or other
orders as this Hon’ble Court and thus render justice.
32. Thus, it is very clear that the Sanganoor Channel has been
interrupted at a point even anterior, and after Shruthi Enclave, as the
Corporation has itself laid roads in certain portions of the Sanganoor
Channel in those areas. Thus, in all probability, there may be no
possibility of reviving of the Sanganoor Channel as one continuous
Channel.
33. Be that as it may, and as rightly pointed out by Mr.Prasanan,
even assuming that the water channel runs dry, it vests in the State to take
a decision as to whether it is possible to revive the water body or to
utilize the Channel for any other purposes. On 22.03.2004, the Water
Resources Organisation of the Public Works Department, issued
21/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
G.O.No.206 relating to the handing over of the Sanganoor Canal to the
Coimbatore Corporation for maintenance. It is true that this action is
consequent on the Sanganoor Canal being unusable for irrigation and the
G.O. makes that clear. We extract below the translated copy of G.O. dated
22.03.2004.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU
ABSTRACT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – WATER RESOURCES
ORGANISATION – SANGANOOR CANAL RUNNING
THROUGH COIMBATORE CORPORATION – HANDING
OVER TO COIMBATORE CORPORATION FOR
MAINTENANCE – ORDER PASSED
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.206 Date : 22.3.2004
SEAL OF
THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
WATER RESOURCES ORGANISATION,
COIMBATORE 31 MAR 2004
READ:-
1) GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.277 DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND DRINKING WATER
SUPPLY.
2) CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES
ORGANISATION, POLLACHI REGION LETTER
NO.HDO/SRDO2/F17366/97-3 DATED 14.11.97.
3) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COIMBATORE LETTER NO.Pa
Mu 59975/98 (A4) DATED 18.3.99.
4) CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES
ORGANISATION, POLLACHI REGION LETTER
NO.HDO/DO4/F1/7366/97 DATED 5.6.2000.
5) THE COMMISSIONER COIMBATORE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION LETTER NO.Sp155/2001CE DATED
22/36https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
21.112001.
6) SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF
LAND ADMINISTRATION, CHENNAI LETTER NO.RC
C2/18005/2002 DATED 29.12.2003.
ORDER
Ref.1 It has been ordered that the canals which are unusable
for irrigation shall be handed over to their respective
Municipal Corporations with the condition that Government
financial aid should not be requested for its maintenance.
2. In Ref.4 letter The Chief Engineer, Water Resources
Organisation, Pollachi has stated that, since, the Sanganoor
canal is unusable for irrigation the same shall be handed over
to Coimbatore Municipal Corporation for maintenance.
3. In Ref.3 letter, The District Collector, Coimbatore has
granted approval for handing over the entire Sanganoor canal
along with its encroachments, rights and maintenance to the
Coimbatore Municipal Corporation subject to the following
condition:-
1) The Coimbatore Municipal Corporation shall take up only
maintenance works in the above said Sanganoor canal.
2) The Coimbatore Municipal Corporation shall not transfer
the rights of Sanganoor canal to anyone or transfer its rights
in any manner whatsoever.
4) In Ref.5 letter, The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal
Corporation has granted approval for handing over the above
said Sanganoor canal to Coimbatore Municipal Corporation
for maintenance.
5) Therefore, Considering the recommendations placed by The
Chief Engineer, Water Resources Organisation, Pollachi, The
District Collector, Coimbatore, The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Municipal Corporation the Government orders to
handover Sanganoor canal to Coimbatore Municipal
Corporation with the following conditions.
23/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
1) The Coimbatore Municipal Corporation shall not put up
any constructions on the banks.
2) Shall not permit others to use it except to maintain the
canal and its banks.
6) With the approval of the Department of Municipal
Administration and Water Supply this order is published in
unofficial Note No.9923/MC2/04 dated 16.3.04.
(By Order of the Governor)
N.S.Palaniappan
Government Secretary
34. However, the Channel, either wet or dry, could not have been
handed over for private exploitation. Proceedings in Ka.N.Ko.58 of 2004
dated 29.04.2004 extracted below (translated version) is cognizant of this,
even as it grants no-objection for forming a culvert and a pathway across
the Canals.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTT
From To
Mr.R.Palanisamy M.E., Mr. R.Rajendran,
Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, No.16, Shruthi Avenue,
Irrigation Sub-division, Coimbatore Aruna Nagar,
Vadamadurai, Thudiyalur,
Coimbatore district.
Ka.N.Ko: 58/2004- Date: 29.04.2004
Sir,
SUB: Coimbatore District – Coimbatore South Taluk –
Uppilipalayam Village – No Objection Certificate requested
for forming Culvert and pathway through SF.Nos.535, 540/1,
551/1, 539/2 and 550 – Regarding.
24/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
Ref: Application dated 22.04.2004 of Mr.R.Rajendran,
Coimbatore.
—–
In the application referred above, Mr.R.Rajendran,
Mrs.Indirani, Mrs. Sridevi, Mrs.Ponnammal, Mr.Anandan,
Mr. Srinivasan, Mrs.Selvi, Mr.Ganesan, Mr.Nanjappan and
Mr.T.K.Nataraj who are the owners of lands in SF.Nos.534,
541, 540/2A, 540/2B, 551/2B, 544, 548, 553, 554 and 538,
539 Uppilipalayam Village, Combatore South Taluk,
Combatore District, in order to access their lands have
requested No Objection Certificate for forming Culvert and
pathway in the canals situated in SF. Nos.535, 540/1, 551/1,
539/2 and 550 at their own cost.
In view of the above said application, the Development
Scheme Plan of Singanallur Scheme Nos.11 & 12 were
inspected and the canals situated therein are blocked in
between. Further when the lands in the above said SF.No.
were inspected, there were no agricultural activities. The
lands surrounding it are residential plots.
Since there were no water irrigation facility for many years
in the above said SF.Nos.534, . 541, 540/2.A, 540/2B, 551/2B,
544, 548, 553, 554 and 538, 539 and as there are no
agricultural activities in the said lands, No Objection
Certificate is issued for forming Culvert and pathway across
the canals situated in SF.Nos.535, 540/1, 551/1, 539/2 and
550 at their own cost subject to the conditions mentioned
herein below.
CONDITIONS:
1. Works for forming of pathway and Culvert must be done
under the supervision of this department.
2. In the event of any expansion works or demolition done in
future, this department must be informed.
Seal of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Irrigation
Sub-division, Coimbatore.
Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD,
25/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
Irrigation Sub-division,
Coimbatore
35. The above proceedings reflect the understanding that there
were no water irrigation facilities for many years in SF.Nos.534, 541,
540/2A, 540/2B, 551/2B, 544, 548, 553, 554, 538 and 539. The
proceedings also state that there were no agricultural activities in those
lands and for that reason, grants no objection for forming a culvert and
pathway across the Canal.
36. The conditions imposed are that the formation of pathway and
culvert must be under the supervision of the Public Works Department
and any further work on the pathway and culvert by way of expansion or
demolition must be done only after obtaining approval from the Public
Works Department.
37. The clear understanding is that the formation of the pathway
and culvert was only temporary, in light of there having been no running
water there for irrigation purposes for many years. All parties appear to
be consensus ad idem on the position that even thereafter, the question of
reviving that part as a water body does not arise.
38. The petitioners have conceded that they have not formed either
a culvert or a pathway across the Channel. Now the difficulty, and the real
issue that arises, concerns the compound wall that has been constructed
26/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
around Shruthi Enclave preventing the public from passing through the
layout using the inner roads as a pathway, which the public believe they
are entitled to.
39. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah4 the Supreme Court has reiterated the
settled position that water bodies must be retained as water bodies and
restored if they deteriorate. They have also emphasized the position that
water bodies are inalienable and this quality of inalienability would
extend to the land comprised in water bodies as well, even if they run dry.
40. Referring to the judgments in the case of Susetha V. State of
Tamil Nadu5, MC Mehta V. Union of India6 and Intellectuals Forum V.
State of Andhra Pradesh7, the Supreme Court emphasizes that no patta
can be granted in respect of tanks and water bodies, including those that
might have dried up or fallen into disuse.
41. The Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam’s8 case has
also reiterated the necessity to preserve a water course, going to the
extent of granting liberty to the State for recoupment of those alienations
of water courses that were illegally done. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
4 Foot Note Supra (1)
5 2006(6) SCC 543
6 (1997) 3 SCC 715
7 (2006) 3 SCC 549
8 Foot Note Supra (2)
27/36https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
20. In the case of R.Lakshmnan (supra), a Public Interest
Litigation was filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court
to restore the capacity of the water bodies as on date of the
1923 survey. The Writ Petition was disposed of by directing
the Government to issue appropriate direction which should
be mandatory in nature to all local bodies, including
Corporation, Municipalities and Panchayats not to grant
any planning permission for any construction that is put up
in a water body and not to grant approval for any lay out or
building plan, if the land is located either in part or in
whole, in a water body and directing the Government to
contemplate issuing of an order under the Tamil Nadu
Town and Country Planning Act making it mandatory to
enclose a certificate of the Revenue Authority along with
building plan application, certifying that no part of the land
is located in a water body and wrong information if
provided, the person who issued the certificate to be held
responsible. Further direction was issued to preserve and
protect the water bodies and complete the exercise already
undertaken within a period of one year and Civil Courts not
to grant any interim protection order restraining the
authorities from evicting a person from a water body. This
decision was rendered by the Division Bench on
06.08.2014, fixing a prematory time limit of one year which
has already lapsed. Nothing has been placed on record by
the first and second respondents that the order of Division
Bench has been complied with. Thus, this is the third
default committed by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
21. We may now refer to certain provisions of the RSOs
with particular reference to water bodies. Part II of the
RSO deals with disposal of land. RSO 15(5) states that only
land, the assignment of which is unobjectionable shall be
assigned, lands acquired for communal purposes shall not
be assigned, tank-bed lands should on no account has been
assigned without consulting an appropriate technical
officer including the Chief Engineer and without specific
orders from the Government. RSO 15(38)(ii) deals with
water course poramboke and states that great care should
be taken to preserve the margins of canals, channels and
streams and the transfer and assignment of such water28/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
course source poramboke can be ordered only by
Government in consultation with the Commissioner of Land
Administration and the Chief Engineer (PWD), vide
G.O.Ms.No.1267, Revenue, dated 29.12.1997. General
Instructions given for Land Administration states that
encroachments in poramboke lands like water
sources/courses, gracing grounds, temple lands, kalam,
etc., are considered as highly objectionable and these
encroachments have to be evicted. The Revenue, Public
Works and Highways Department authorities and local
bodies like Municipalities and Corporation have been
empowered to evict unauthorised encroachments after
giving due notice under the Tamil Nadu Land
Encroachment Act, 1905, for which a District level
Committee under the Chairman of the District Collector
has been constituted. Insofar as the directions contained in
the RSO which are inconsistent with any other subsequent
enactment or decision of this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme
Court are deemed to have been superseded.
22. The common thread which runs through the manual of
Revenue Administration is to preserve water courses as
such. Though certain Government Orders were issued
during 1970s, permitting assignment of Tank-beds with due
permission, if those Government Orders seek to regularise
illegal encroachment in tank-beds, water channels or area
abutting and on margins of water channels to that extent
the Manual of Revenue administration and the Government
Orders are deemed to have been superseded, more
particularly in the light of the directions issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra).
However, the manual of Revenue Administration does not
specifically state about assigning tank beds for a different
user or concession to house site etc after reclassification.
42. We have to consider the present matter in the context of the
above pronouncements. Notwithstanding that the present litigation is
projected as though it were a private dispute between the parties, it cannot
be denied that the permission granted in 2004 for a takeover, albeit
29/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
temporary, of a water channel, is contrary to law, public interest and
pronouncements of the Apex Court that have recognized the necessity to
protect water courses and the land upon which they are comprised.
43. A reading of impugned orders dated 14.02.2006 and
22.01.2007, extracted below, show that, far from constructing the culvert
and pathway as erroneously permitted, tar topped roads have been formed
and walls have been constructed by the petitioners.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
From To
Engr.K.Nagarajan B.E., Mr.R.Rajendran,
Executive Engineer, PWD, 16, Shruthi Avenue,
Bhavanisagar Dam Division, Aruna Nagar,
Thudiyalur,
Bhavanisagar - 638451. Coimbatore.
Letter No. VaPa- E Va A3/Ko/73/66/06/ Date: 14.02.2006
Dear all,
SUB: Coimbatore District – Coimbatore
South Taluk – Uppilipalayam Village –
recalling of permission for forming Culvert
and pathway through SF.Nos.535, 540/1,
551/1, 539/2 and 550 – Regarding.
Ref: Letter of this office No.VaPa- E Va A3-
Ko-73-263 M-2004-
Date: 20.7.2004
——
Permission was granted for forming Culvert and pathway in
the canals situated in SF.Nos.535, 540/1, 551/1, 539/2 and
550 vide this office’s letter referred above.
It was made to know in the inspection that culvert and
pathway were not formed in the permitted lands in the
30/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
permitted manner, instead tar topped roads were formed and
walls were constructed. Therefore as culvert and pathway
were not formed in the permitted lands in the permitted
manner and instead tar topped roads were formed and walls
are constructed. The permission granted vide the referred
letter is hereby cancelled.
Hence it is requested that the tar topped roads and walls
constructed in the canals should be removed. Failing which
be informed that as per rules Departmental Actions will be
initiated to remove the encroachments.
Sd/-
14.02.2006
Executive
Engineer, PWD,
Bhavanisagar
Dam Division,
Bhavanisagar.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
From To
Engr.K.Nagarajan B.E., Mr.R.Rajendran,
Executive Engineer, PWD, 16, Shruthi Avenue,
Bhavanisagar Dam Division, Aruna Nagar, Thudiyalur,
Bhavanisagar - 638451. Coimbatore.
—————————————————————————–
Letter No. VaPa/EVaA3/Vo73/25M/ Date 22.01.2007
Dear All,
SUB: Coimbatore District – Coimbatore South Taluk –
Uppilipalayam Village – permission was granted for
forming Culvert and pathway through SF.Nos.535,
540/1, 551/1, 539/2 and 550 – Recalled – Request to
remove the encroachments -Regarding.
Ref: 1) Letter of this office No. VaPa- E Va A3-
Ko-73/263M-2004- Date:20.7.2004.
2) Letter of this office No. VaPa-E Va
31/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
A3/Ko/73/66M/2006/ Date: 17.02.2006
——————
Permission was granted for forming Culvert and pathway in the
canals situated in SF.Nos.535, 540/1, 551/1, 539/2 and 550 vide
this office’s letter Ref.1 above. But, culvert and pathway were
not formed in the permitted lands in the permitted manner,
instead tar topped roads were formed and walls were
constructed, in continuance of which permission has been
cancelled vide the Ref.2 letter and it was requested that the tar
topped roads and walls constructed in the canals should be
removed.
In this circumstances, based on the decision taken by the
Steering committee regarding removal of encroachments, it is
requested that the tar topped road at present situated in
SF.550/2 should be transferred to the lands belonging to
yourself on the northern side, without causing any hindrance to
the farmers and general public.
Executive Engineer,
PWD,
Bhavanisagar Dam
Division,
Bhavanisagar
44. In light of the discussion in the paragraphs supra, where we
have expressed our concurrence with the orders impugned in
W.P.No.32596 of 2014, the first issue is answered in the negative and
adverse to the petitioners.
45. Our answer to the first issue will itself determine the conclusion
to the second issue. As we have held that there is no question of handing
over a water course to a private developer for development and
conversion into a private pathway, the question of enclosing that pathway
32/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
so as to prevent public access does not arise.
46. If at all the negotiations qua the petitioners and the authorities
lead to the conclusion that the petitioners would be permitted to construct
a compound wall around the Enclave, it must be such that the water
course stands outside the compound walls or such that there is suitable
access at the entry and exit points of the water course into, and out of the
Enclave. This issue is answered accordingly.
47. We are in agreement with letter and spirit of orders dated
14.02.2006, 22.01.2007 and 28.05.2007 and confirm the same.
Accordingly, W.P.No.32596 of 2014 stands dismissed.
48. In light of the above discussion, impugned orders/Notices in
W.P.Nos.2276, 404, 16, 24, 2597, 29, 32, 35, 397, 401, 402, 405 and 23
of 2019 and 32533, 25883, 25886, 26105, 26602, 26688, 26877, 27349,
27613, 27650, 27659, 27686, 28155, 28174, 28182, 28202, 28214,
33261, 30748, 30973, 31231, 32397, 32400, 32402, 32495, 32498,
32503, 32505, 32509, 32511, 32514, 32517, 32520, 32523, 32526,
32527, 32531, 32536, 32538, 32539, 33262, 33283, 33287, 33290,
33293, 33295, 34531, 34535, 34537, 34539, 34541, 34544, 34548,
34550, 34616, 34619, 34623, 34798, 34800 and 25865 of 2018 and
24500 of 2017 are quashed and the Writ Petitions stand allowed.
49. We opine that the legal argument relating to Sections 54 and 56
33/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 does not require
to be answered in these writ petitions. This is all the more for the reason
that there are admitted deviations in the development of Shruthi Enclave
that representation dated 19.06.2017 filed by the petitioners stands
testimony to. We however leave the issue open for resolution in a more
appropriate case.
50. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M, J.] [C.K, J.]
.04.2026
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes
Sl
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore, Coimbatore – 18.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Bhavani Sagar – 638 451.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Irrigation Sub-Division,
34/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
Coimbatore – 641 001.
5.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Coimbatore,
Coimbatore.
6.The Member Secretary,
Local Planning Authority, Tatabad,
Coimbatore – 12.
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore – 18.
35/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32596 of 2014 etc. batch
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
C. KUMARAPPAN,J.
sl
7
W.P.Nos. 32596 of 2014 etc. batch
06.04.2026
36/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
