A. Jayasankar v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI and W.M.P.Nos.21276 and 21293 of 2025 A.Jayasankar Son of Arjunan
...Petitioner
in W.P.No.19001 of 2025 M.Pathmavathi D/o.Murugesan
...Petitioner
in W.P.No.19010 of 2025 vs.
1. The District Collector Office of Collectorate Gundu Salai Road Alpet, Manjakuppam Cuddalore District - 607 001
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Chidambaram - 608 001
3. The Tahsildar No.54, Lalkhan Street Chidambaram - 608 001
4. P.Kanthavel Page Nos.1/15
S/o.Late Pandiyarajan ... Respondents in both WPs Prayer in W.P.No19001 of 2025:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to grant house site patta in the name of petitioner by considering the petitioner's application vide Grievance ID No.TN/REV/CUD/I/COLLMGDP /03FEB25/10905141 dated 03.02.2025, within the time limit fixed by this Court and forbear the first to third respondents from taking any coercive action against the subject property, pending disposal of the hosue site patta application. Prayer in W.P.
No19010 of 2025:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to grant house site patta in the name of petitioner by considering the petitioner's application vide Grievance ID No.TN/REV/CUD/P/COLLMGDP /03FEB25/10904874 dated 03.02.2025, within the time limit fixed by this Court and forbear the first to third respondents from taking any coercive action against the subject property, pending disposal of the hosue site patta application. For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Anbumani in both WPs for Mr.M.A.Arshad For Respondents : Mr.K.Suresh in both WPs Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Rajavelavan for R4 Page Nos.
COMMON ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioners in both captioned main 'Writ Petitions' ['WP' in singular and 'WPs' in plural for the sake of brevity], Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader for official respondents (R1 to R3) in both WPs and Mr.R.Rajavelavan, learned counsel for private respondent (R4) in both WPs are before us.
2. This Court with the consent of all the aforesaid learned counsel took up the main WPs and the main WPs were heard out.
3. The genesis of the matter is R4 (private respondent) before us coming to this Court with a 'Removal of Encroachment' ['RoE'] prayer vide W.P.No.8008 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by this Division Bench in and by an order dated 10.03.2025, which reads as follows: Page Nos.3/15
Page Nos.4/15
Page Nos.5/15
Page Nos.6/15
Page Nos.7/15
Page Nos.8/15
4. The aforementioned order speaks for itself and therefore, we refrain from dilating more on the same.
5. Suffice to write that the afore-referred earlier order dated 10.03.2025 made by this Bench shall now be read as integral part and parcel Page Nos.9/15
of this order. This also means that short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the earlier order will continue to be used in the instant order too.
6. Post earlier order, writ petitioners as well as R4 were visited with hearing notices (miHg;ghiz) by the 'Divisional monitoring Committee vide G.O.No.64 dated 08.02.2022' (hereinafter 'G.O.64 DM Committee' for the sake of convenience) fixing the hearing on 29.04.2025 at 10.30 am. There is no disputation or contestation that writ petitioners as well as R4 attended the hearing before 'G.O.64 DM Committee' on the said date and time. The point is, writ petitioners in the captioned WPs, who are R5 and R6 in the earlier WP filed with a 'RoE' prayer, took the plea that they have made an application dated 03.02.2025 seeking free house site patta under the scheme floated by the State.
To be noted, the writ petitioners have taken the position that they are admittedly encroachers in public land but are entitled to free house site patta, as according to them, said public land is objectionable unused area and that writ petitioners satisfy the parameters. We express no opinion on whether the writ petitioners are entitled to patta. Suffice to say that the grant of patta in such cases is now governed by Page Nos.
G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 21.02.2025 and in the case on hand, the 'District Level Committee' [hereinafter 'G.O.97 DL Committee' for the sake of convenience] is in seizin of the matter. Learned State counsel confirms that writ petitioners' applications dated 03.02.2025 are under active consideration of G.O.97 DL Committee.
7. After attending the hearing on 29.04.2025, the writ petitioners came to this Court, filed captioned WPs and a Division Bench of the Vacation Court granted interim injunction, which is operating.
8. In deference to the interim injunction, G.O.64 DM Committee is yet to make orders. Likewise, G.O.97 DL Committee is also yet to make orders. To be noted, the time frame fixed for the G.O.64 DM Committee to make orders is 12 weeks and the same elapsed on 02.06.2025 but in the interregnum, interim order was granted on 22.05.2025.
9. While learned counsel for writ petitioners contended that the entitlement of writ petitioners for free house site patta under G.O.Ms.No.97 is under active consideration of G.O.97 DL Committee, if orders are pronounced by G.O.64 DM Committee, RoE proceedings will commence. Page Nos.11/15
10. Writ petitioners admit the position that they are residential encroachers but it is in objectionable unused area.
11. In the light of the narrative thus far, the crux of the issue is, the question as to whether writ petitioners are entitled to patta under G.O.Ms.No.97 has to be decided by G.O.97 DL Committee one way or the other. To put it with specificity, G.O.97 DL Committee should decide whether the writ petitioners are entitled to patta qua said land or if they are not entitled, their application is liable to be rejected. The G.O.64 DM Committee should make an order thereafter taking into account the decision of the G.O.97 DL Committee.
12. In the light of the narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far, the following order is made:
i) G.O.97 DL Committee shall decide the writ petitioners' applications dated 03.02.2025 as expeditiously as the business of G.O.97 DL Committee permits. However, learned State counsel submits that G.O.97 DL Committee will take a decision within eight weeks from today i.e., on or before 19.09.2025;
Page Nos.12/15
ii) The decision taken by the G.O.97 DL Committee shall be communicated to the writ petitioners as well as R4 under due acknowledgement within five working days from the date on which the order is made;
iii) Post 19.09.2025, the G.O.64 DM Committee which has already concluded the hearing shall take into account, the decision of G.O.97 DL Committee and make proceedings within another eight weeks therefrom i.e., on or before 14.11.2025;
iv) As we made it clear that earlier order made by this Court being order dated 10.03.2025 in W.P.No.8008 of 2025 is to be read as integral part and parcel of this order, the time line set out therein obviously stand altered as per the instant order; v) Coercive action, if any and if that be so, will be subject to proceedings to be made by G.O.64 DM Committee in the aforesaid manner.
Page Nos.13/15
Captioned WP disposed of in the aforesaid manner with afore-referred directives. In the light of what we have written regarding coercive action, the captioned WMPs become otiose and the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 25.07.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gpa To
1. The District Collector Office of Collectorate Gundu Salai Road Alpet, Manjakuppam Cuddalore District - 607 001
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Chidambaram - 608 001
3. The Tahsildar No.54, Lalkhan Street Chidambaram - 608 001 Page Nos.14/15
M.SUNDAR., J, and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI., J, gpa 25.07.2025 Page Nos.15/15