Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 61350 (MAD)

K.SUNDARARAJAN v. The Director

WP/3630/2026 · 2026-08-20

G Arul Murugan

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.No.3630 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.08.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.3630 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.4040 of 2026 K.Sundararajan S/o.Kishtan No.2/78,Pillayar Kovil Street, Maamandur Village, Arungulam Post Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District. Petitioner Vs 1.The Director Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops No.1, Wallaja Road, PWD Estate Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 2.The Deputy Director of Agriculture Agriculture Department Thiruvallur District 3.The District Collector Thiruvallur District 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 5.The Block Development Officer Thiruvaalangadu, Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 6.The Commissioner Agricultural Marketing & Agri Business Guindy, Chennai-600 032 7.The Thasildhar Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District. Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent or any other authorities coming under him to forbear from any manner proceeding with the felling, cutting, removing, damaging or causing destruction of any trees standing in Survey No.90/2, Maamandur Village, Arungulam Post, Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, where the Mass Tree Plantation under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) exists by using public funds, based on the detailed representation dated 7.1.2026 given by the petitioner. For Petitioner: Mr.Udhayakumar for Mr.C.D.Sugumar For Respondents: Mr.C.A.Ramanan Govt Advocate ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to respondent No.4 or any other authorities to forbear from in any manner proceeding with the felling, cutting, ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 removing, damaging or causing destruction of any trees standing in Survey No.90/2, Maamandur Village, Arungulam Post, Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, where mass tree plantation under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) exists by using public funds. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, under MGNREGS, approximately 200 saplings were planted at a total cost of Rs.4,37,000/- in Survey No.90/2. Again, in the year 2022-2023, an additional sum of Rs.2,53,000/- was spent by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department for barricading, fencing and safeguarding the said plantation area, which clearly reflects the intention of the Government to preserve and protect the plantation for long term public and environmental benefit. While so, the authorities now decided to fell trees in Survey No.90/2 for construction of paddy drying yard and storage shed. 3. The fourth respondent has filed counter-affidavit, in which it is stated as under: “8. With respect to para 2 to 7, It is submitted that only on the request of the genera! public of mamandur village, ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 proposal has been mooted out for setting up of a Paddy drying yard with grading centre in S.No.90/2 classifies as Dry Anadeenam for the benefit ofthe agricultural farmers in this village only an extent of 0.12.00 Hectare (30 Cents) out of the total extent of 0.69.00 Hectare (1.71 Aers) has been earmarked, 7 Jamun trees and one teak tree have to be removed for the implementation of the above Public oriented project. Necessary permission for the removal of 7 Jamun trees and one teak tree in S.No.90/2 has also been obtained from the District Green Tribunal on 09.02.2026. Hence, the contentions raised in these paras do not deseiwe for any consideration. 9. It is submitted that the land comprised in Survey No.90/2 of the said village, measuring an extent of 0.69.00 acres and classified as “Punjai Anadeenam”, has been identified and selected for the said purpose. It is further submitted that, although other poramboke lands are available in Mamandur Village, the subject land has been chosen for the establishment of a drying yard and storage warehouse, taking into consideration its advantageous location with access to road and electricity, as well as its proximity to agricultural fields. The alternative poramboke lands do not possess such basic infrastructural facilities like road access and electricity connection. Hence, the selection of the land in Survey No.90/2 is justifiable and made in the larger public interest. 10. As regards para 7, it is submitted that the Grama Sabha meeting held on 29.02.2025, proposal for the establishment ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 of a Paddy drying yard with grading centre has been approved under the caption of subject no. 16. Hence, in view of the above recent resolution of the Grama Sabha, the panchyat resolution dated 09.01.2023 seems to be superseded. As such, this averment is not sustainable.” 4. Learned Government Advocate submits that only 7 Jamun trees and 1 teak tree are sought to be removed for setting up of paddy drying yard and rest of the trees remain untouched. For the aforesaid purpose, necessary permission has also been obtained from the District Green Tribunal on 09.02.2026. Further, only 30 cents out of total extent of 0.69.00 Hectares has been taken for the said project. In view of the above, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the permission granted to fell 8 trees, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, the respondent authorities are directed to maintain the remaining trees and the balance land as it is. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 20.08.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 To: 1.The Director Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops No.1, Wallaja Road, PWD Estate Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 2.The Deputy Director of Agriculture Agriculture Department Thiruvallur District 3.The District Collector Thiruvallur District 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District 5.The Block Development Officer Thiruvaalangadu, Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 6.The Commissioner Agricultural Marketing & Agri Business Guindy, Chennai-600 032 7.The Thasildhar Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.3630 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. bbr W.P.No.3630 of 2026 20.08.2026 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis