Thiru. Suresh Sambath v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUNDAR W.P. No.25971 of 2025 Suresh Sambath Petitioner vs.
1.
The District Collector Krishnagiri 2.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Collectorate Campus Krishnagiri 3.
The Tahsildar Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District 4.
The Executive Officer Uthangarai Krishnagiri District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2025, submitted under G.O.(Ms.) No.97 dated 21.02.2025 seeking issuance of patta within a time frame. For petitioner Mr. B. Sudharshanam For RR 1 to 3 Mr. K. Suresh, Govt. Advocate For R4 Mr. Rajesh, Govt. Advocate - - - - -
ORDER
(made by M. SUNDAR, J.) Captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus and the mandamus prayer is predicated on writ petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2025 [hereinafter 'said representation' for the sake of convenience and clarity] vide which the writ petitioner has sought issue of patta by placing reliance on G.O. (Ms.) No.97, Revenue and Disaster Management [LD-1(1)] Department dated 21.02.2025. 2.
Mr. B. Sudharshanam, learned counsel for writ petitioner, submitted that inaction on the part of respondents has necessitated the filing of the captioned WP.
3.
Issue notice to respondents.
4.
Mr. K. Suresh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for RR 1 to 3 and Mr. Rajesh, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R4.
5.
Considering the limited scope of the captioned WP, the captioned WP was taken up in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides. 6.
Learned State counsel for RR 1 to 3 fairly pointed out that prior to said representation, a notice under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been issued but that has been issued by R4 (Executive Officer) and this Court has, time and again, held that an Executive Officer of a Panchayat does not have powers to issue a notice under Section 7. Learned State counsel submits that the Section 7 notice dated 15.05.2025 will now stand withdrawn. This submission is recorded.
7.
We preserve the rights and contentions of the State to issue a Section 7 notice afresh by a competent authority. If such a notice is issued, we also preserve the rights and contentions of writ petitioner/noticee to meet the same on its own merits.
8.
Be that as it may, reverting to said representation, the Tamil version of said representation gives the date erroneously as 23.03.2025 and learned counsel for writ petitioner regrets this error. A scanned reproduction of said representation is as follows:
9.
Learned State counsel submits that the question of whether G.O. (Ms.) No.97 alluded to supra would be applicable, may please be left open. We accede to this request and leave open the same. Learned State counsel submits that orders will be made by R3 as expeditiously as the official business of R3 permits but in any event within twelve weeks from today i.e., on or before 09.10.2025. The orders so made by R3 shall be served on the writ petitioner/applicant under due acknowledgment within five working days.
10.
Captioned WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (H.C., J.) 17.07.2025 cad Index: Yes/No NC : Yes/No
To 1.
The Distrcit Collector Krishnagiri 2.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Collectorate Campus Krishnagiri 3.
The Tahsildar Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District 4.
The Executive Officer Uthangarai Krishnagiri District
M. SUNDAR, J.
and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
cad 17.07.2025