The Madras High Court has directed authorities in Krishnagiri district to hold an independent inquiry into allegations of social ostracism and rights violations arising from a village land dispute.
Village Social Ostracism: Madras High Court Orders Inquiry
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy passed the order on March 24, 2026, while hearing a petition filed by a woman from Pillankuppam village in P. Revathi v. The District Collector & Ors.
The petitioner sought action against her neighbour and local panchayat leaders. She alleged that they subjected her family to discriminatory restrictions after she refused to give land for a pathway.
After hearing the parties, the Court issued directions to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police. The Court said:
“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,”
The dispute began in early February 2022. A neighbouring landowner sought a pathway through the petitioner’s property. When she refused, the neighbour reportedly approached leaders of the Katta Panchayat, a traditional village council.
The petitioner said the council first told her family to allow access and pay fines. She said the family then asked local police and revenue officials to conduct a formal land survey. According to her, the local leaders then escalated the matter and issued a series of coercive and illegal directions.
Village Social Ostracism: Madras HC Directs Independent Probe
She alleged that these directions barred the family from using public water sources. They also prevented them from buying groceries from local shops, visiting tea shops, attending other villagers’ family functions, and performing worship.
She further alleged that the council imposed fines of up to ₹1 lakh on her family. It also imposed fines of ₹25,000 on villagers who did not comply.
The petitioner also said villagers were told not to speak to the family. She added that the children faced isolation at the local school.
Officials acknowledged the land dispute. However, they told the Court they had no records showing any formal ostracisation. The local headman, who was part of the council, denied any organised exclusion. He claimed 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. She told the Court that officials had taken no steps despite the complaint.
During the hearing, government representatives told the Court that a Revenue Divisional Officer had conducted an inquiry. They said the officer found that the alleged actions had not taken place.
Village Social Ostracism: Probe Ordered by Madras HC Over Land Dispute
Counsel for the petitioner disputed that stand. He said the situation in the village continued and required intervention by the authorities.
The Court directed the authorities to complete the inquiry within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It further stated:
“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.
Also read: IPL Election PIL: Madras HC Rejects Plea
