Madras High CourtWP/27828/2021dismissed

M.Vellimani v. The District Collector

2026-03-09Honourable Mr Justice S. M. Subramaniam,Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender4 pages

2026:MHC:1025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER W.P.No.27828 of 2021 M.Vellimani ..Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal.

2. The District Revenue Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruchengode, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

4. The Tahsildar Tiruchengode Taluk, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

5. The Commissioner for Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

6. P.Palaniappan

7. K.Shanmugam

8. Krishnaveni

9. S.Thangadurai 10.P.Sengottaian 11.P.Sengottaian 12.K.Selvam 13.S.Palanisamy 14.Gandhimathi 15.P.Manivannan 16.P.Thangaraj 17.P.Saratha @ Sarathamani ..Respondent(s)

(R16 & R17 impleaded vide order dated 09.03.2026) Prayer: Calling for the records relating to the 5th respondents order made in R2 / 1323446 / 21 dated 11.10.2021 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to5 to restore S. F. No. 16, Molasi Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District as Kuttai Poramboke i.e Kondayan Kuttai to its original state and to protect the water body poramboke For Petitioner:

Mrs.N.R.Jasmine Padma For Respondent(s):

Mr.T.Arunkumar, AGP for R1 to R5 Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy for R12 No Appearance for R8 to R11,13 to 15 R6 & R7 - Died (Steps Taken) *****

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted, challenging the order of the 5th respondent dated 11.10.2021, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. District Revenue Officer passed an order in Proceedings dated 12.09.2016, holding that 10 persons referred by the petitioner as encroachers are identified as owners of the property and the said property is also found to be a patta land. The said order was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 08.09.2017. The petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration on

20.07.2021 after a lapse of about 41⁄2 years. The Commissioner has rejected the Revision Petition on the ground of delay, as the time for filing revision is 60 days.

3. Findings of District Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer would show that the subject land is a patta land. That being the factum, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to approach the competent Civil Court, if any right exists for her. Revenue Authorities are incompetent to decide a tile, ownership, etc in respect of an immovable property.

4. In the present case, on verification of revenue records, Authorities found that the subject land is not a Government land, but a private land. Thus, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 09-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AR

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

AND K.SURENDER,J.

AR To: