“We in most of the cases go by the oral submissions made by the Government counsel. The Government counsel, in turn, rely on the instructions given to them by the officials concerned. Any false information given to the Government counsel directly interferes with the administration of justice. It would constitute contempt of Court,” the court said.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a communication to the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk in Tiruchirappalli District, calling for an explanation for giving false information to the Government counsel, in connection with a case involving encroachment in a waterbody. Based on the report, the court will decide on taking up a suo motu case.

The court was hearing a petition filed by two men seeking to remove the encroachment made on a water channel.

When the matter came up for hearing, the Government Advocate informed the court that of the three survey numbers mentioned by the petitioners, two were water bodies but the third was a patta land.

To this, the petitioners relied on the “A” Register extract [land record containing details of the land] and submitted that the third property had been classified as Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu, i.e., it was a water spread area.

The court noted that such a land could be a patta land, but the landholder's rights would be limited, and he cannot put up any construction or do anything that would obstruct the free flow of water. The court also noted that any encroachment in the waterbody should be removed by due process of law.

The court directed the Tahsildar to issue notice to the concerned encroachers and take action as per law, after affording an opportunity of hearing. The court added that the entire exercise should be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order copy.

During the course of the hearing, the court also noted that though the copy of the “A” register produced by the petitioners clearly mentioned the property as Karanthapadikulam Neerpidipu in the remark column, such an entry was not present in the photocopy furnished to the Government Advocate.

The court noted that the entry was concealed at the time of taking the photocopies. Noting that this was nothing short of misleading the court, the bench called for an explanation from the Tahsildar.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. R. Kannan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. Rajagopalan, Government Advocate

Case Title: J Abdul Malik and Another v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

Case No: WP(MD) No. 21426 of 2026