Madras High CourtWP/5367/2026disposed of

M.Subramaniam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2026-02-24Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY M.Subramaniam .. Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department, No.130, R.K.Madam Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide letter dated 30.12.2025 vide Na.Ka.No.C175/2025 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the plot bearing Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8, Srinivasa Nagar Layout, Velachery, measuring 8480 sq.ft. forming part of approved layout D.T.P. No.324/73, Old Survey No.336/2 (part), Velachery Village, Chennai District and covered by sale deed vide Doc. No.2503/2006 under the category of innocent purchaser as per G.O.Ms.No.565 dated 26.09.2008.

1/4

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Silambarasan For Respondents :

Mr.Abishek Murthy, Government Advocate

ORDER

Asserting that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the innocent buyer scheme framed in G.O.Ms.No.565, Revenue Department, dated 26.09.2008, the petitioner applied on 28.01.2025. The request was rejected under impugned order dated 30.12.2025.

2. Adverting to the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order records that the petitioner purchased the land on 31.05.2006, which is prior to the cut-off date 26.09.2008. In spite of noticing this fact, he submits that the request for regularisation was rejected.

3. Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for both the respondents. In all fairness, he submits that the matter warrants reconsideration.

4. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noticeable that the impugned order records the petitioner's date of 2/4

purchase as 31.05.2006, which is prior to the cut-off date. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the second respondent. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a speaking order shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

24.02.2026 Index:Yes/No mmi To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department, No.130, R.K.Madam Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

3/4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi 24.02.2026 4/4