Justice G.R. Swaminathan Justice B. Pugalendhi Madras HC LAND DISPUTE Blank column in photocopy hidwater-body status from bench
[ Madras High Court ]

Madurai Bench Flags Contempt Risk After Tahsildar's Photocopy Concealed Water-Body Entry in ‘A’ Register

The Madurai Bench found that a Tahsildar's photocopy of the ‘A’ Register had column 12 left blank, concealing a critical water-spread classification, and directed the Registrar to call for an explanation.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice B. Pugalendhi, allowed a writ petition seeking removal of encroachments from a water channel in Thuvarankurichi Village, Trichirappalli District, on 30 July 2026. The bench directed the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, to issue notice to the encroachers and complete the entire exercise within four months. It did not, however, stop there. The bench observed that a photocopy of the ‘A’ Register placed before it by the Government Advocate had column 12 — the remarks column identifying the land as a water-spread area — left entirely blank. The bench characterised this as concealing information from the Court, said it was “nothing short of misleading the Court,” and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to call for an explanation from the Tahsildar.

The Dispute Before the Bench

The two petitioners, J. Abdul Malik and J. Siddiq Ali, residents of Thuvarankurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District, filed WP(MD) No. 21426 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus. They wanted respondents 1 to 4 — the District Collector, the District Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Tahsildar — to initiate proceedings to remove encroachments made by the fifth and sixth respondents, R. Ramesh and P. Kanthasamy, in the Sakkiliyankulam channel.

The encroachments were alleged to be in Survey No. 33/1 and in Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2, classified as Karanthapadikulam, situated in Ponnampatti Town Panchayat, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichirappalli District. The petitioners said the channel had been blocked and encroached upon and sought its restoration to its original position within a court-stipulated timeframe.

Mr. R.R. Kannan appeared for the petitioners. Mr. P. Rajagopalan, Government Advocate, appeared for respondents 1 to 4.

The Government's Contested Position on Survey No. 33/1

When the matter came up for hearing, the Government Advocate conceded that Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2 are water bodies. His position on Survey No. 33/1 was different. Based on written instructions given by the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, in Na.Ka.A1/13/2026 dated 29 July 2026, the Government Advocate submitted that Survey No. 33/1 is a patta land and therefore in a different legal category.

The petitioners' counsel drew the bench's attention to the relevant ‘A’ Register extract. On examining it, the bench found that Survey No. 33/1 had been classified as “Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu,” meaning a water-spread area. The bench accepted that such land could simultaneously bear patta status, but held that the rights of a patta holder in a water-spread area are limited. The holder cannot put up construction or do anything that obstructs the free flow of water. Surface runoff cannot be impeded in any manner.

The Bench's Reasoning on Patta Rights in Water-Spread Areas

The bench's reasoning turns on the co-existence of patta status and water-body classification. A piece of land can carry both, but the water-body character controls the permissible use. Once the ‘A’ Register records a survey number as a water-spread area, that classification imposes an obligation on the revenue authorities to maintain it as such, regardless of whether patta rights have been granted over it.

On that basis, the bench held that any encroachment in the petition-mentioned water bodies must be removed through due process. The Tahsildar was directed to issue notice to the concerned encroachers, give them an opportunity of hearing, and then take action as per law. The entire exercise was required to be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Concealed Remarks Column and Contempt Warning

Having disposed of the petition on those terms, the bench proceeded to address what it described as a more serious matter that could not be given a quietus.

The bench noted that the Tahsildar's written instructions in Na.Ka.A1/13/2026, which formed the basis of the Government Advocate's submission that Survey No. 33/1 is only a patta land, had been accompanied by a photocopy of the ‘A’ Register. In that photocopy, column 12 — the remarks column — was blank. The original ‘A’ Register, however, clearly mentioned in that column that the land is a water-spread area (Neerpidipu), specifically described as Karandhabeebikulam.

The bench found that the remarks column entry appears to have been concealed while making the photocopy. It called this nothing short of misleading the Court. The bench observed that courts in most cases proceed on the oral submissions made by Government counsel, who in turn rely on instructions given by officials. When false information is supplied to Government counsel, it directly interferes with the administration of justice and would constitute contempt of court.

Direction to Registrar and Next Date

The bench directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a communication to the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, calling for an explanation. The report was directed to be placed before the bench on 6 August 2026. The bench stated it would decide whether to take suo motu action after examining the explanation.

Outcome

The writ petition WP(MD) No. 21426 of 2026 was allowed with no order as to costs. The Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk, was directed to issue notice to the encroachers in Survey No. 33/1 and Survey Nos. 68 and 69/2, afford them a hearing, and remove the encroachments within four months of receipt of the order. Separately, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to call for a written explanation from the Tahsildar regarding the blank remarks column in the photocopy of the ‘A’ Register furnished to the Government Advocate, with the explanation to be reported to the bench on 6 August 2026 for a decision on suo motu contempt action.