V.Bhuvaneshwari v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the District Collector

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenge has been made to the impugned order whereby the Block Development Officer addressed a communication to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, directing disconnection of the electricity service connection granted to the petitioner in Survey No. 258. The said communication was issued pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 16535 of 2021 dated 18.09.2025, directing the authorities to remove encroachments in the waterbody. Based on the said direction, the impugned notice has been issued.

2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Survey No. 258/4 is not a waterbody, but is classified as Natham land, and that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for several years.

3.Therefore, this Court directed the respondents to produce the relevant records indicating the classification of the survey number concerned.

4.Today, the learned Government Counsel produced the village sketch and Adangal records. On perusal of the same, it is seen that Survey No. 258/1 is classified as Natham and not as a waterbody, whereas Survey No. 258 is classified as a channel. The petitioner is in occupation of Survey No. 258/4, which is classified as Natham land, and is in possession of the property. An electricity service connection had already been granted to the petitioner.

5.In such circumstances, since Survey No. 258/4 is not a waterbody, the statement made in the impugned notice that the said survey number is a waterbody and the consequent direction to disconnect the electricity service connection cannot be sustained. In fact, the authorities who issued the notice have failed to properly appreciate the order passed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench directed eviction only in respect of encroachments in the waterbody and not in respect of other lands.

¶6Hence, the impugned notice dated 16.02.2026 is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]

17.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai,

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikudi Taluk, Viagangai District.

4.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Devakottai,

5.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO Devakottai North, W.P(MD)No.6343eofe2026 oN.SATHISHoKUMARoo,oJo. and oM.JOTHIRAMANoo,oJo. am ORDERoMADEoIN W.P(MD)No.6343oofo2026 DATEDo:o17.06.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and W.M.P(MD)No.5266 of 2026 V.Bhuvaneshwari ... Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikudi Taluk, Viagangai District. 4.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Devakottai, 5.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO Devakottai North, ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.P4/432/2025 dated 16.02.2026 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbearing the fourth and fifth respondents not to disconnect the electricity service connection provided to the petitioner's house situated in Survey No.258/4, Kandadevi Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Vijay Pandian For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Venkatesh Counsel for State For R5 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel