V.Sudarshan Rao v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE V.Sudarshan Rao S/o. Late M.Venkoba Rao, No.3, Sri Raghavendra Nilaya, 1st A Cross, 19th Main Road, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru- 560 026.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Collector Office, Krishnagiri.
3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Krishnagiri.
4.The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Mathigiri.
Hosur- 635 110.
Respondent(s) PRAYER:-Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the petitioner property as reserved forest by the 1 to 4 respondents is illega; and null and void and as a consequential relief directing 1 to 3 respondents to issue a patta in favour of the petitioner pertaining to property situated at Ebbri Village,
Vepanapalli Taluk, Comprised in 1).S. No. 25/1- Acre 861.44 cents, 2).S.No.26/1-Acre 988.36 cents in all totally measuring an extent of Acre 1849.8 cents.
(Prayer Amended As Per Order Dated 28.03.2025 In WMP.12775/2025 In WP.10423/2025 By NAVJ) For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.Ramachandran For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Government Advocate For R1 to R3 Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik For R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for an issuance of patta for the property more fully described in the prayer to this writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
2.The 3rd respondent has filed counter stating that the property for which patta has been sought for by the petitioner is the forest land and therefore, the patta cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has been in possession of the property for a long number of years, the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would submit that now the petitioner is not insisting for issuance of
patta in his favour for the property more fully described in the prayer to this writ petition instead the petitioner is seeking for compensation from the respondents. 4.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim for compensation.
5.Since the prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted as the property for which patta has been sought by the petitioner is a forest land, the petitioner seeks to grant liberty to seek compensation from the respondents by submitting a representation within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 6.No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the petitioner is directed to submit a representation seeking for compensation and the same is directed to be considered by the respondents on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 7.Accordingly this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents seeking compensation, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same within the stipulated time, the 1st respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter.
8.With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 05-02-2026 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Collector Office, Krishnagiri.
3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Krishnagiri.
4.The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Mathigiri.
Hosur- 635 110.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.
rst 05-02-2026