Dr.M.B.Gokul v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Dr.M.B.Gokul S/o. Late. Boopathy, No. 11/84 Railway Station Back side, Kadayampatti Taluk, Danishpet, Salem 636 354 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector District collector office, Salem 636 001

2. The Revenue Divisional officer Omalur Division, Salem district, Salem 636 455

3. The Tahsildar Kadayampatti Taluk, Salem district, Salem 636351 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3rd respondent consider and disposed the petitioners representation dated 9.01.2026 consequently grant patta in favour of the petitioner For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Arun Raj For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.Guruprasad, Govt's counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2026.

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. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner is in possession of the subject property at Survey No.383/1, wherein he is carrying on agricultural activities for the past 70 years. Under these circumstances, initially, the Forest Department made a claim over the said land by stating that it is a forest land. However, the said plea was rejected by the Civil Court in OS.No.239 of 2012, wherein it was declared vide decree dated 31.08.2021 as it is not a forest land but it is a Government land. Hence, a representation was made before the Revenue Authorities for issuance of patta, pertaining to the subject property, in favour of the petitioner. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

5. In reply, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondent would fairly admit that a decree was passed to the extent that it is not a forest land but a Government land. In such case, the petitioner's representation will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, there is no dispute on the aspect that the subject land is not forest land but it is a Government land. Further, the petitioner is in possession of the subject land for the past 70 years, wherein he is carrying on agricultural activities. In such case, the petitioner is certainly entitled for patta, pertaining to the subject land.

8. It is the bounded duty of the respondents to issue patta to the subject land, in survey No.383/1, in favour of the petitioner, unless and otherwise the said land falls under the category of water catchment. However, it is unfortunate that the respondents had not at all looked into the plea of the petitioner in a proper manner.

9. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2026 and take appropriate steps to issue patta as requested by the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. 11-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa To

1. The District Collector District collector office, Salem 636 001

2. The Revenue Divisional officer Omalur Division, Salem district, Salem 636 455

3. The Tahsildar Kadayampatti Taluk, Salem district, Salem 636351

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

nsa 11-06-2026