Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

A.Charles vs the District Collector

A.Charles vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 29, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1434853

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/11936/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.Charles

Respondent

The District Collector

Excerpt

.....survey no.52 to an extent of 1.53.0 hectares to the agricultural lands irrigation to the vittavidagai village sriperumbudur taluk kanchipuram district as per petitioner’s representation dated 01.03.2026.for petitioner : mr.r.anbalagan for respondents : mr.e.ranganayaki, additional government pleader, for respondents 1 to 3order(order of the court was made by g.arul murugan, j.) this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the first respondent to remove the encroachments allegedly made by respondents 4 and 5 in a waterbody at s.no.52 in vittavidagai village, sriperumbudur taluk, kanchipuram district.2. learned additional government pleader, upon instructionsfrom the tahsildar, sriperumbudur, submitted that the tahsildar, along with the revenue inspector and the village administrative officer, conducted an inspection of the subject property and in the said inspection, it was found that no encroachment has been made.3. in view of the fact that there is no encroachment, no furtheradjudication is required in this petition. hence this writ petition is closed. there will be no order as to costs. (sushrut arvind dharmadhikari, cj.) (g.arul murugan, j.) index : yes/no neutral citation : yes/no tar to the hon'ble chief justice andg.arul murugan, j.(tar)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN A.Charles No.128/115, Old Colony, Sendamangalam Village Sriperumbudur Taluk- 602106 Kanchipuram District. : Petitioner Vs 4.Nice Developers Private Limited Vittavidagai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk 5.Vaipai Developers Private Limited Vittavidagai Village Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. : Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to remove the encroachments by respondents 4 and 5 on the water channel of Odai (Stream) Coming through Poramboke Survey No.52 to an extent of 1.53.0 Hectares to the agricultural lands irrigation to the Vittavidagai Village Sriperumbudur Taluk Kanchipuram District as per petitioner’s representation dated 01.03.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anbalagan For Respondents : Mr.E.Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan, J.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the first respondent to remove the encroachments allegedly made by respondents 4 and 5 in a waterbody at S.No.52 in Vittavidagai Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

2. Learned Additional Government Pleader, upon instructions

from the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur, submitted that the Tahsildar, along with the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer, conducted an inspection of the subject property and in the said inspection, it was found that no encroachment has been made.

3. In view of the fact that there is no encroachment, no further

adjudication is required in this petition. Hence this writ petition is closed. There will be no order as to costs. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar To THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(tar)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial