Mrs.Mymoon Bivi v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY MRS.Mymoon Bivi W/o.Late shamsu Gani S1 Agilam Apartments, B Block 17/9 3rd Cross Street Gopal Colony, Perambur Chennai 600011.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner Land Reforms Chepauk, Chennai 600005.
2. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o.The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram.
4. The Tahsildar Kamuthi Taluk Ramanathapuram District.
5. The Sub Registrar Of Assurances Kamuthi Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram.
..Respondent(s) Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents, particularly the 3rd
respondent to conduct proper enquiry in the manner known to law, based on title deeds and revenue mutations pertaining to the immovable property having larger extent of 5 acres and 84 cents classified Punja lands situate at Kamuthi Group, Kamruthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District in Survey No.448/3 based on the petitioners representation dated 14.10.2025in File No. B11/39494/2025. For Petitioner(s):
T.S.Rajamohan For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Guruprasad, Govt's Cl.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2025.
2. Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.
4. When this matter was taken up for hearing the learner Government's counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the subject property is situated at Ramanathapuram district. Further, he would contend that though the 1st respondent, who is a formal party, resides at Chennai, all the other official respondents, to whom the direction, if any, has to be issued are residing at
Ramanathapuram district. In such case, the petitioner is supposed to have filed the present petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court. However, merely since the petitioner is residing in Chennai, this petition is filed before this Court by invoking wrong jurisdiction. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, the subject property is situated at Ramanathapuram District. Further, the official respondents, to whom the direction has to be issued, are also residing at Ramanathapuram District. In such case, there is no doubt that the present petition is supposed to have been filed before the Madurai bench of this Court. However the petitioner had wrongly invoked the jurisdiction and file this petition before this Court.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed for invoking the wrong jurisdiction. The liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Madurai bench of this Court and file a fresh petition. No cost. 10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa
To
1. The Commissioner Land Reforms Chepauk, Chennai 600005.
2. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer O/o.The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram.
4. The Tahsildar Kamuthi Taluk Ramanathapuram District.
5. The Sub Registrar Of Assurances Kamuthi Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa 10-06-2026