LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 23 July 2026

Can a person claim rights over land forming the bank of a river?

Sivanupandian v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District
WP(MD) No. 18560 of 2026 · WP(MD) No. 18560 of 2026
Coram: Justice G.R.Swaminathan · Justice B.Pugalendhi
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.24 Water (Prevention and Contr…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. The bank of a river cannot be divorced from the river proper, and a river bank has to be maintained free of any kind of encroachment — the same principle by which the bund of a tank forms part of the tank. Where the revenue records classify the survey number as river poramboke and the 'A' Register describes it as the river itself, the character of the property as a water body is beyond dispute and no title can be claimed over it.

Headnote

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — s.24 — Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 — s.36 — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Art.25 — Art.51A(g) — River as a juristic person — Encroachment on a river bank — Encroachment — River bank — Bank not to be divorced from the river — Held: The bank of a river cannot be divorced from the river proper and must be maintained free of any encroachment; no title can be claimed over what is in truth an ancient monument standing on it. (¶3) Constitution of India — Art.25 — Art.21 — Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — s.24 — Pollution in the name of religion — Held further: No one has the right to pollute a water body even in the name of religion; the freedom to practise religion is subservient to public health, and regulating rituals on a river bank breaches no fundamental right. (¶6, ¶8) River as a juristic person — Personhood as a deity — Right not to be polluted — Held further: Personhood is conferred on the river not because it is a river but because She is worshipped as a deity, and only for the limited purpose of the right not to be polluted; no other right or liability springs from it. (¶13, ¶15) Directions — Continuing mandamus — Immersion of ashes permitted — Held further: Dumping of clothes and articles in the river stands banned as a continuing mandamus, while immersion of ashes is permitted in unfired earthen pots alone. Petition disposed of. (¶21, ¶23)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 3On this sanguine note, we proceed to examine the facts on hand. The structure in question is located in Survey No.876/1A, South Vikramasinghapuram Village. As per the revenue records, it has been classified as river poramboke. The “A” Register categorically describes the survey number as “Tamirabarani River”. The character of the property as a water body is beyond dispute. We have held that the bund of a tank is also a part of the tank and encroachment on a bund is impermissible (R.Manibharathi v. UOI WP(MD)No.31214 of 2023 etc., batch decided on 07.03.2024). Applying the same principle, we hold that the banks of a river cannot be divorced from river proper. A river bank also has to be maintained free of any kind of encroachment. The writ petitioner cannot claim any title over what is actually an ancient monument. One should not tinker or alter its features. A 400 year old stone structure had been distorted beyond recognition by erection of walls. The authorities rightly called upon the petitioner to vacate.
Acts & Sections
s.24 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s.36 Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939Art.21 Constitution of IndiaArt.25 Constitution of IndiaArt.51A(g) Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sivanupandian v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does the freedom to practise religion protect a ritual that pollutes a water body?On what basis may juristic personality be conferred on a river, and how far does it extend?May the ashes of the dead be immersed in a river otherwise protected against pollution?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections