C.Krishnan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.Nos.44669 & 44672 of 2025 C.Krishnan S/o.Chidambaram ... petitioner Vs

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kanchipuram.

2. Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Guduvanchery.

3. The Taluk Deputy Inspector Land Survey, Chengalpet.

4. The Tahsildar Chengalpet.

5. J.Gandhi S/o.Jaganadhapillai ... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings in RPT 2013/ 10 in 8A 2025/ 1420 dated 21.02.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and 1/4

consequently direct the 2nd respondent to restore the patta in petitioner's favour which is situated at No.155 paiyanoor village, Golden Hamlet, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in survey No.446/2 part extent of Acer 0.43. cents in the registration District of Chengalpet and sub Registration District Thirupporur and within limits of Thirupporur Panchayat union and Paiyanoor Panchayat For Petitioner :

Ms.G.Uma Maheswari For Respondents :

Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader ****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.02.2011 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to restore the patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject property.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned proceedings has been challenged after nearly 14 years by the petitioner. The only reason that has been assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a senior citizen. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is absolutely no explanation as to why it took nearly 14 years for the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court. 2/4

4. Even though the law of limitation is not strictly applicable in writ proceedings, the Doctrine of laches will apply. If a party does not come to this Court within a reasonable time, that by itself is a ground to reject the writ petition. In the case on hand, the petitioner has chosen to question the issuance of patta after 14 years. Hence, the writ petition suffers from laches and hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

25.10.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order mk N.ANAND VENKATESH, J 3/4

mk To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer Kanchipuram.

2. Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Guduvanchery.

3. The Taluk Deputy Inspector Land Survey, Chengalpet.

4. The Tahsildar, Chengalpet.

25.10.2025 4/4