District|Tamil Nadu

Dindigul district

Watch

89% of the irrigated farmland is watered from wells (Season and Crop Report 2024-25), 7 of 10 taluks already draw more groundwater than recharges, and 92.2% of households are recorded with a tap, with the gap concentrated in Natham and Kodaikanal.

Read as of 2026-09-06, from 306 Gram Panchayats in 14 blocks, 301 of them with a brief that cleared the evidence floor.

89%
of irrigated farmland is watered from wells
Season and Crop Report 2024-25

1,04,560 ha net irrigated: canals 4.5%, tanks 5.6%, tube and bore wells 15.9%, open wells 72.7%, other sources 1.2%. Supplementary wells (694 ha net) supplement other sources and are not additive.

7 of 10
taluks over-exploited or critical
IN-GRES 2024-2025

District stage of extraction 117.5%, assessed over-exploited. Assessed per revenue taluk, not per block or Panchayat.

92.2%
of households recorded with a tap
JJM, read 2026-09-06

4,56,059 connections against 4,94,548 households in 301 Panchayats.

Type a name, a block or an LGD code; all 306 are listed. Press Enter to open the first match, or browse by block further down.

What the district runs on

Irrigation from the district tables of the Season and Crop Report 2024-25, with the Census 2011 village pattern beneath it as the block-level baseline; drinking water from the sources JJM records today. A Panchayat without a measure lowers that measure’s denominator rather than counting as a zero.

Irrigated farmland by source, 1,04,560 ha net (Season and Crop Report 2024-25)
16%73%
  • Canals4.5%(4,743 ha)
  • Tanks5.6%(5,848 ha)
  • Tube and bore wells15.9%(16,649 ha)
  • Open wells72.7%(76,020 ha)
  • Other sources1.2%(1,300 ha)

Season and Crop Report 2024-25, Table III-B, the district total: gross 1,07,729 ha with 3,169 ha irrigated more than once (intensity 1.03). The report's supplementary-wells column ('by all other types of wells') records 694 ha net for this district in 2024-25; it waters land already counted under another source and is not added to the net total.

The block-level baseline: Census 2011, 85,367 ha
78%
  • Canals10.1%(8,622 ha)
  • Wells78.0%(66,586 ha)
  • Tanks10.4%(8,878 ha)
  • Other sources1.5%(1,281 ha)

Census 2011 village tables, covering 238 of 306 Panchayats with a land record. Kept beneath the current reading because it is the only served source with a block gradient.

Drinking-water sources by category, 11,904 sources
98%
  • Ground Water98.2%(11,688)
  • Surface Water1.4%(167)
  • Others0.3%(32)
  • Rain Water0.1%(17)

JJM, read 2026-09-06. Commonest source types: Deep Tubewell (10,743), Open Well (540), Infiltration well (375), River (120).

98.2% of the 11,904 drinking-water sources JJM records here draw on groundwater (10,743 of them deep tubewells), against 167 on surface water.

Groundwater by taluk

IN-GRES assesses revenue taluks, not blocks or Panchayats. These are the units the district is actually assessed in, and the headroom reading is written from them.

IN-GRES 2024-2025 puts total groundwater availability across the 10 taluks at 53,635 ham a year, 25,198 ham of it rainfall recharge, with 9,114 ham (17%) left for future use. Of the 10 taluks, 7 over-exploited, 2 semi-critical and 1 safe. The district as a whole is assessed over-exploited at 117.5% of extraction. Headroom sits mostly in Kodaikanal (2,784 ham) and is thinnest in Athoor (155 ham).

TalukStage of extractionCategoryRainfall recharge (ham)Total availability (ham)Left for future use (ham)Rainfall (mm)
Gujiliamparai158.7%over-exploited1,5833,754209690
Vedasandur147.6%over-exploited2,5316,113888804
Oddenchatram142.5%over-exploited3,2377,596852712
Nilakottai139.8%over-exploited2,1406,189860825
Dindigul West125.7%over-exploited3,1955,214197935
Athoor123.4%over-exploited1,6233,900155986
Dindigul East119.2%over-exploited3,0445,768704904
Palani88.5%semi-critical2,7928,3601,800689
Natham78.8%semi-critical2,0403,615664983
Kodaikanal1.6%safe3,0123,1252,7841223

IN-GRES 2024-2025. The stage of extraction is annual draft as a share of total availability; above 100 percent, more is drawn each year than the taluk is assessed to have. Rainfall recharge is one component of that availability. The year is the hydrological-year label, not an edition date. 306 of 306 Panchayats inherit their containing taluk's category by spatial intersection, as containing-area context rather than a measurement of the place; 0 are deferred rather than guessed.

Blocks compared

The same measures per block. Where a district average hides a gradient, this is where it shows, and the findings are written before the table rather than left for the reader to find.

Canal share runs from 42.1% in Kodaikanal to 0.0% in Guziliamparai, Oddanchatram and Vadamadurai; wells fill the difference, 93.7% of irrigated farmland at the bottom of the gradient against 8.4% at the top.

The tap gap is mostly on the blocks without canal water (Natham (65.7% of households, 9.3% canal), Vedasandur (84.3% of households, 1.1% canal), Thoppampatty (93.2% of households, 7.4% canal), Shanarpatti (96.7% of households, 7.9% canal), Guziliamparai (96.8% of households, 0.0% canal), Oddanchatram (96.8% of households, 0.0% canal) and Vadamadurai (98.5% of households, 0.0% canal)); Kodaikanal (72.8% of households, 42.1% canal), Nilakottai (91.3% of households, 20.5% canal), Palani (95.8% of households, 15.2% canal), Reddiarchatram (95.9% of households, 18.2% canal), Athoor (96.4% of households, 12.2% canal), Dindigul (98.7% of households, 15.5% canal) and Batlagundu (98.9% of households, 17.3% canal) are the exception, with canal water and a gap.

Drinking water, JJMFarmland irrigation, Census 2011Groundwater, IN-GRESWater bodies, TNGISWater-quality testing, JJM
BlockPanchayatsHouseholds with a tapIrrigated areafrom canalsfrom wellsfrom tanksTaluk category, projectedMappedUntested 90+ dLongest since tested
Athoor2296.4%10,359 ha12.2%68.9%15.4%over-exploited(22 of 22)86058 d
Batlagundu1798.9%3,119 ha17.3%69.8%12.9%over-exploited(17 of 17)68033 d
Dindigul1498.7%1,256 ha15.5%73.3%11.2%over-exploited(14 of 14)192033 d
Guziliamparai1796.8%3,103 ha0.0%70.1%29.9%over-exploited(17 of 17)256032 d
Kodaikanal1572.8%1,679 ha42.1%8.4%0.1%safe(15 of 15)21053 d
Natham2365.7%4,202 ha9.3%78.4%12.3%semi-critical(23 of 23)630033 d
Nilakottai2391.3%4,672 ha20.5%79.5%0.1%over-exploited(23 of 23)117058 d
Oddanchatram3596.8%8,166 ha0.0%96.3%3.7%over-exploited(35 of 35)140695 d
Palani2095.8%8,727 ha15.2%58.8%26.0%semi-critical(20 of 20)116086 d
Reddiarchatram2495.9%8,674 ha18.2%67.2%14.6%over-exploited(24 of 24)170017 d
Shanarpatti2196.7%5,037 ha7.9%82.8%9.3%over-exploited(21 of 21)532057 d
Thoppampatty3893.2%16,672 ha7.4%90.0%2.6%semi-critical(38 of 38)167081 d
Vadamadurai1598.5%3,619 ha0.0%93.7%6.3%over-exploited(15 of 15)198047 d
Vedasandur2284.3%6,083 ha1.1%93.4%5.5%over-exploited(22 of 22)274046 d

Canal, well and tank figures are shares of the irrigated farmland beside them, not of households and not of drinking water. They come from Census 2011 (Census 2011 release; village reference year 2009) and cover only the 238 Panchayats with a Census land record, so a block with few such records shows a share of a small area. Tap and testing figures are JJM and current at the read date. The talukcategory is the one most of the block’s Panchayats inherit by projection, since blocks and revenue taluks do not nest. Untested counts Panchayats whose most recent water-quality sample is more than 90 days before 2026-09-06; ninety days is the Atlas’s own threshold for calling a series stale, not a statutory testing interval.

Floods and scarcity

Two readings the directory families cannot carry: what the state's own disaster plan says about flood exposure here, and - where the state publishes one - the week's tanker register. Both are the state's documents, quoted and dated, not the Atlas's assessment.

Dindigul is not among the fourteen coastal districts the state disaster plan rates highly vulnerable; the plan does not classify inland flood exposure district by district, so that is the extent of what it states here, not a rating of safety.

The 14 coastal Districts, viz., Chennai, Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur, Cuddalore, Villupuram, Thanjavur, Tiruvarur, Nagapattinam, Myladuthirai, Pudukottai, Ramanathapuram, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Kanniyakumari are highly vulnerable and affected frequently by the trough and depression formed in the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean during South-West and North-East monsoon periods.
Tamil Nadu State Disaster Management Plan 2023, State profile, hazard vulnerability, PDF page 24

Water bodies

The TNGIS all-water-bodies register, joined to each Panchayat by the register's own LGD code rather than by a name match.

2,967
water bodies, 11,718 ha of mapped waterspread

In 279 Panchayats; 27 have none in the register. Registered by AED, DOSS, NRSC, TNRD, WRD. Waterspread is the mapped extent, not storage: it says nothing about whether these hold water through the year or when any one of them was last surveyed. Read 2026-09-06.

District Environment Plan

District Collector, Dindigul, and PAPD, Dindigul (the two signatories on the last page; the committee-constitution order lists PA, PD as the District Committee's convenor), for the District Committee; published on the Dindigul district website's documents listing prepared the plan on the CPCB model under the NGT's 2019 order. What it states about water is transcribed below, each figure with the page it sits on; nothing here is computed from it.

District Environmental Plan for Dindigul District, 2019

Dated 2019-10-24, 4 pages. Read the plan (PDF). The plan prints no date and the PDF carries no metadata dates (pdfinfo shows neither CreationDate nor ModDate). The last page carries hand-dated signatures: PAPD, Dindigul 23.10.19 (a second signature below it is dated 23/10/19) and District Collector, Dindigul 24/10/19. The collectorate documents listing dates the entry 29/10/2019 and the file sits under the 2019/10 upload path (2019102954.pdf). The same site holds the committee-constitution order of 27.08.2019 and minutes of committee meetings on 12.09.2019, 25.09.2019 and 09.10.2019. The edition is labelled 2019 and dated to the Collector's signature.

Transcription checked against the document on 2026-09-18.

Named gap
The plan prints no water balance
Not the CPCB model narrative. A four-page scanned action list headed A to J (solid waste, bio-medical waste, plastic waste, construction and demolition waste, industrial pollution control, utilization of treated sewage, conservation of water bodies, e-waste, polluted river stretches, illegal sand mining), each heading followed by one to ten one-line items with no responsibility, time-target or cost columns, no district profile, no tables and no photographs. The non-attainment cities and polluted industrial clusters subjects listed in Annexure I of the committee-constitution order do not appear. It prints no demand, supply or deficit water balance. A demand, supply and deficit table for Dindigul is still to find; the figures the plan does state are below.
FigureAs statedWhere
Polluted river stretches in Dindigul district, as stated by the plan
Printed in words as a statement, not a count; it is the entire content of the polluted-river-stretches section and cites no list. Dindigul is not among the six Tamil Nadu stretches named in the neighbouring districts' plans.
0 stretchesp. 4 (PDF p. 4)
Plastic recycling units identified to obtain registration from TNPCB
Not a water figure; kept because it is the only numeric count the plan prints. Item c. of the plastic-waste section, which the OCR layer letters 'C.'.
32 unitsp. 2 (PDF p. 2)

Action points the plan sets for water: creating awareness to public through special task force constituted as per g.o.no. 58 of maws dept dated: 20.04.2019.; monitoring of industries by periodical collection of water / waste water samples for ascertaing water quality.; dindigul corporation : treated sewage from common stp is used for irrigation after mixing with treated effluent from cetp (talco). remaining part is disposed into sengulam for rechange of ground water.; collection of data regarding discharge of sewage and disposal of solid waste in river stretch with quantity and prepare digital mapping with above details.; desilting, removal of enchroachments & flood control measures; taluk level task force constituted shall conduct surprise check of the illegal mining activities.. Two things to know when reading the PDF: The PDF is an image scan with no text layer (four JPEG pages, no CreationDate, ModDate, title or author): pdftotext returns empty pages, so the page text used for the quote check is tesseract OCR of 300 dpi renders, and every quote was also read against the page image. No page carries a printed page number, so printedPage is set equal to pdfPage (the cover heading is on page 1). The cover prints the title on two lines, 'District Environmental Plan for' over 'Dindigul District', with no office name, emblem or date; the publisher is taken from the signature blocks on page 4. The solid-waste list is numbered '1' while every other section is lettered, and its items run f. to j. with no a. to e.; the bio-medical items a. and b. sit on page 1 and c. and d. on page 2, and the OCR layer renders the lower-case item letter c. as 'C.' on page 2 (twice), which collides with the 'C. Plastic Waste Management' heading. The polluted-river-stretches heading is printed 'Polluted River Stretches (PWD)/Local Bodies)' with an unmatched closing bracket, and its whole content is one sentence, 'There is no polluted river stretches in Dindigul District', with no reference to the CPCB list it answers. The treated-sewage section is one sentence on Dindigul Corporation: treated sewage from the common STP is used for irrigation after mixing with treated effluent from the CETP (TALCO), and the remainder is disposed into Sengulam for groundwater recharge; no STP or CETP capacity, sewage generation or treated volume is printed, and TALCO is not expanded. The only numbers the plan prints are '100%' door-to-door collection (a target), G.O.No. 58 of MAWS Dept dated 20.04.2019, '32 Nos' plastic recycling units, and 'Rules 2016'; no water body or tank count, groundwater status, BOD, tannery or industrial effluent figure, Kodaikanal lake or sand-mining figure appears, and Kodaikanal is not mentioned although its Municipality sits on the committee. The signature block prints 'PAPD' unexpanded over 'Dindigul'; two signatures sit on that side, hand-dated 23.10.19 and 23/10/19, and the District Collector's signature is hand-dated 24/10/19. Spellings are as printed: 'bulps', 'Awarness', 'ascertaing', 'enchroachments', 'rechange', 'manufactures'; page 4 shows faint bleed-through of the same text from the sheet behind. The e-waste section's third item (page 4) is lettered 'c.' but the OCR layer renders it as 'es'; no quote is taken from that line.

Polluted river stretches

What CPCB's October 2025 (updated version) report lists for the district. Priority is CPCB's own BOD band on the 2022 and 2023 maximum, I the worst; station BOD for 2024 is the report's follow-up annexure. Each row says how it was joined to the district: a place CPCB prints, or the river's course.

Named gap
CPCB lists no polluted stretch or location in Dindigul
The October 2025 (updated version)report names no stretch or monitoring location in this district. That is a statement about CPCB's list, not a measurement of every river here.

Find a Gram Panchayat

Every one of the 306 LGD-coded Gram Panchayats is listed. A place shows a water profile only where its evidence cleared the floor (identity, population and drinking-water service established); the rest are directory records, kept so they can be found and reviewed.

306 Gram Panchayats. 301 water profile, 5 directory record.

16-pudurThoppampatty223462Water profile
A. KalayamputhurPalani223397Water profile
A.VelloduDindigul223270Water profile
AdaloorReddiarchatram223417Water profile
AdiyanuthuDindigul223271Water profile
AdukkamKodaikanal223301Water profile
AkkaraipattiAthoor223248Water profile
AkkaraipattyThoppampatty223463Water profile
AlagupattiReddiarchatram223418Water profile
AlamarathupattiAthoor223249Water profile
AlambadiGuziliamparai223284Water profile
AmarapoondiPalani223398Water profile
AmbathuraiAthoor223250Water profile
AmbilikaiOddanchatram223362Water profile
AmmapattiReddiarchatram223419Water profile
AmmapattiVedasandur223532Water profile
AnaipattiDindigul223272Water profile
AndipattiPalani223399Water profile
AnjukulipattiShanarpatti223441Water profile
AnumandarayankottaiReddiarchatram223420Water profile
AppanuthuThoppampatty223464Water profile
AppipalayamThoppampatty223465Water profile
AppiyampattyThoppampatty223466Water profile
ArasappapillaipattiOddanchatram223363Water profile
AthikombaiOddanchatram223364Water profile
AthoorAthoor223251Water profile
AvichipattiNatham223316Water profile
AvilipattiShanarpatti223442Water profile
AyyankottaiAthoor223252Water profile
BalakrishnapuramDindigul223273Water profile
BodikammanvadiAthoor223253Water profile
BodurvarpattyThoppampatty223467Water profile
BoothagudiNatham223317Water profile
ChatrapattiOddanchatram223365Water profile
ChellapanaickenpattiNatham223318Water profile
ChettinaickanpattiDindigul223274Water profile
ChettiyapattiAthoor223254Water profile
ChinnakalayamputhurPalani223401Water profile
ChinnakkampattiOddanchatram223366Water profile
ChinnuluppaiGuziliamparai223285Water profile

The district on a map

Every Panchayat with a mapped boundary is plotted from the centre of its own TNGIS polygon, not from a hand-entered coordinate. The marker is the Panchayat, not a settlement.

Loading map

306 of 306 Panchayats have a mapped boundary. The polygons are not drawn on this page.

How current these figures are

Not everything on this page is from the same year, and the gap is large. What each figure describes is listed separately from when the Atlas last read it, straight from each artifact's own record.

FiguresDescribesLast readProducedNotes
Panchayat list and codes2021-03-11 (PDF CreationDate)2026-09-062026-09-06TNRD LGD directory, cross-checked against the current TNRD master on the retrieval date.
Drinking-water service, sources, testingcurrent at 2026-09-062026-09-062026-09-06Jal Jeevan Mission citizen corner: habitations, tap connections, sources, sample rows.
Irrigation by source, districtSeason and Crop Report 2024-252026-09-062026-09-06DES Season and Crop Report Table III-B: net area irrigated per source at district grain. The block gradient below stays Census 2011 until a taluk-grain source is wired.
Land, irrigation and seasonal sourcesCensus 2011 release; village reference year 20092026-09-062026-09-06Census 2011 village tables, the newest village-level irrigation enumeration served here. The Season and Crop Report district mix above is the current reading; the 2017-18 Minor Irrigation Census (wells and tanks by village) is not wired yet.
Groundwater assessment2024-20252026-09-062026-09-06IN-GRES, assessed per revenue taluk. The year is the hydrological-year label.
Groundwater projected to Panchayats2024-20252026-09-062026-09-06Each Panchayat inherits its containing taluk's category by spatial intersection.
Rainfall2026-08-07 to 2026-09-062026-09-062026-09-06Open-Meteo reanalysis at a grid point inside each Panchayat, not a gauge.
Water bodiesas mapped; the register carries no survey date2026-09-062026-09-06TNGIS all-water-bodies register, counts and areas only.
Panchayat briefs2026-09-062026-09-062026-09-06Generated from the families above; a place without identity, population and service stays directory-only.
District Environment Plan2019 plan, dated 2019-10-242026-09-062026-09-18Transcribed from the published PDF with the page each figure sits on; nothing computed from it.
Flood classificationTamil Nadu State Disaster Management Plan 2023, 2023-03-182026-09-022026-09-02The plan's own flood classification, quoted with its page; the Atlas classifies nothing itself. A revised plan replaces this line wholesale.

The land, irrigation and seasonal-source figures are the oldest thing here by a wide margin. India’s 2021 census did not take place, so Census 2011 remains the most recent village-level enumeration and there is no newer source of the same granularity to replace it with. Those figures are kept under capabilities named historical, and the current-crop capability is left empty rather than answered with a 2009 number.