The Madras High Court recently directed authorities in Krishnagiri district to conduct an independent inquiry into allegations of social ostracism and rights violations linked to a land dispute in a village. [P Revathi v. The District Collector & Ors]
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy passed the order on March 24, 2026, while hearing a petition filed by a woman from Pillankuppam village.
The petitioner had sought action against her neighbour and local panchayat leaders, alleging that her family was subjected to discriminatory restrictions after she refused to provide land for a pathway.
After hearing the submissions, the court issued directions to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police.
"Respondents 1 (District Collector) and 2 (SP) is directed to conduct enquiry independently in this regard and ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner by violating her fundamental rights as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," directed the Court.
The incident began in early February 2022, when a neighbouring landowner sought a pathway through the petitioner's property. When she refused, the neighbour reportedly approached local leaders of the Katta Panchayat (traditional village council).
The council initially directed the family to permit access and pay fines. When the family requested a formal land survey from local police and revenue officials, the local leaders allegedly escalated their actions and imposed a series of coercive and illegal orders.
These orders reportedly restricted the family from using public water sources, buying groceries from local shops, attending tea shops, participating in other villagers’ family functions and performing worship.
It also imposed fines of up to ₹1 lakh for the family and ₹25,000 for villagers who did not comply.
Villagers were reportedly told not to speak to the family and the children faced isolation at the local school.
While officials acknowledged the ongoing land dispute, they said that they had no records of any formal ostracisation. The local headman who was part of the council claimed that there was no organised exclusion and that villagers had independently chosen not to attend the family’s events.
The petitioner submitted that she had sent a representation to district authorities on July 30, 2023, seeking action. However, no steps had been taken by the officials despite the complaint, she informed the Court.
During the hearing, government representatives informed the Court that a Revenue Divisional Officer had conducted an inquiry and found that no such actions had taken place as alleged.
The petitioner’s counsel responded that the situation in the village continued and required intervention by authorities.
Ultimately, the Court directed the inquiry be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It added,
“In the event, the official respondents found any illegality committed by the respondents 4 (neighbor) to 6 (Local Katta Panchayat leaders) as alleged by the petitioner, immediately the official respondents shall take legal action, including filing an FIR against the respondents 4 to 6.”
Advocates Gnanavel and N Stalin appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate P Ganesan appeared for the District Collector.
Government Advocate R Venkatesa Perumal represented the Superintendent of Police and a local village leader.
Advocate I Siddiq from Dass and Viswa Associates represented the other village leaders listed as respondents.
[Read Order]