M/S. Vak Engineering Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Land Administration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY M/s.VAK Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its CEO, Raju Iyer, No.294, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai - 600 005.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.
3.The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Chennai - 600 061.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai South, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
(Near the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University) ... Respondents 1/8
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 03.03.2025 and to remove the words "Subject to the outcome of the review application to be filed in W.P.No.11408 of 2023" from the Patta dated 18.12.2024 issued by the fourth respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.T.Vijay For Respondents : Mr.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025 and to remove the words "Subject to the outcome of the review application to be filed in W.P.No.11408 of 2023" from the Patta dated 18.12.2024 issued by the fourth respondent.
2/8
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, initially, in the first round of litigation, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11408 of 2023, by challenging the order of the first respondent dated 14.02.2023, which was allowed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, by way of common order dated 27.04.2023. Against which, Mr.A.R.Sridharan, contesting respondent has filed a Special Leave Petition to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was withdrawn by the said A.R.Sridharan on 22.08.2014. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court has attained its finality. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made an application for issuance of patta, which was also issued by the fourth respondent with a remark "Subject to the outcome of the review application to be filed in W.P.No.11408 of 2023".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as on date, no review application was filed by the official respondents and thus, the inclusion of the said remark in the patta is severely affecting the interest of the petitioner. In order to remove, the said remark, the 3/8
petitioner sent a representation dated 03.03.2025 to the respondents. However, the same was not considered, till date. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. Per contra, Mr.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents has admitted that in the present case, the petitioner has succeeded in the first round of litigation i.e., W.P.No.11408 of 2023, which was filed before this Court. Further, he would fairly submit that though the respondents have filed a review application, the same was not numbered, till date. Hence, the aforesaid remark was made in the patta, issued to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court has directed the petitioner to issue patta in W.P.No.11408 of 2023 by virtue of the order dated 27.04.2023. After that, the contesting respondent filed 4/8
a Special Leave Petition to Appeal, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was withdrawn. Therefore, the issue has attained its finality. Under these circumstances, the fourth respondent issued a patta with a remark "Subject to the outcome of the review application to be filed in W.P.No.11408 of 2023".
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, certainly, this remark will affect the petitioner's interest. If at all, there is any dispute or any matter is pending before the Court of law with a stay of any order, then there is a meaning in such remark. But, in the case on hand, the issue has attained its finality. Further, the review application, which was filed by the respondents is not even numbered. When that being the case, recording such a remark will definitely affect the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents has no authority to make such a remark, unless and otherwise any specific order is passed or recorded by the Court of Law. As in terms of order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11408 of 2023, the petitioner is entitled to patta without any remark. 5/8
8. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to remove the remark "Subject to the outcome of the review application to be filed in W.P.No.11408 of 2023" from the patta and issue a fresh patta to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
03.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vm 6/8
To 1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai.
3.The Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Chennai - 600 061.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chennai South, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
(Near the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University) 7/8
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm 03.09.2025 8/8