Saravanan v. The Commissioner Of Land Reforms
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub-Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
4.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the first to third respondents, to forthwith implement the revised Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2007 and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms dated 23.05.2011, by duly identifying and demarcating the declared surplus extent of 37 cents in Survey No. 45/4, to pass final orders on the petitioner's request for restoration, to Page No. 1 of 6
restore the remaining non-surplus lands in Survey No.45/4 (excluding 37 cents) and in Survey Nos.52/2A to 52/10 and 52/17 to the lawful owners or their legal heirs, to correct the revenue records and issue patta within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Meena For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader *****
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the first to third respondents, to forthwith implement the revised Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2007 and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms dated 23.05.2011, by duly identifying and demarcating the declared surplus extent of 37 cents in Survey No.45/4, to pass final orders on the petitioner's request for restoration, to restore the remaining nonsurplus lands in Survey No.45/4 (excluding 37 cents) and in Survey Nos. 52/2A to 52/10 and 52/17 to the lawful owners or their legal heirs; and to correct the revenue records and issue patta, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
Page No. 2 of 6
2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though earlier several lands, including the lands in Survey No.45/4 (2.59 acres) and Survey No.52/2A (6.61 acres), were declared as surplus lands by a notification dated 13.02.1985, the said notification was subsequently revised by a Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2007, declaring only 3.50 acres in Survey No.52/2A and only 37 cents in Survey No.45/4 as surplus land and directing that the remaining extent be released and restored to the landowners.
4. He further submits that the same was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madurai, by proceedings dated 23.05.2011, wherein it was stated that Survey Nos.52/11 to 52/16 alone constituted surplus land and that the lands in Survey Nos.52/2A to 52/10 and 52/17 were to be returned to the landowners.
5. He further submits that an application was submitted seeking restoration of the non-surplus lands in Survey Nos.52/2A to 52/10 and Page No. 3 of 6
52/17 and also for demarcation of the surplus land; that pursuant thereto, the Sub-Collector, Devakottai, passed an order dated 04.07.2025 placing the lands under 'Held Over' status; and that once the revised notification dated 14.02.2007 and the consequential proceedings dated 23.05.2011 attained finality, the respondents are statutorily bound to identify, demarcate and take possession of only the declared surplus extent of 37 cents in Survey No.45/4 and to restore the remaining non-surplus lands to the lawful owners or their legal heirs, without delay.
6. A perusal of the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the SubCollector, Devakottai, indicates that the lands were directed to be kept under 'Held Over' status and that a decision would be taken after obtaining permission from the Land Reforms Department. The said order further indicates that if any party is aggrieved, an appeal may be preferred before the District Revenue Officer.
7. This Court is of the view that though an alternate remedy is available and the same has been specifically provided in the said order, the petitioner, without approaching the District Revenue Officer by filing an appeal, has approached this Court, urging the very same grounds raised Page No. 4 of 6
in the application, based on which the order dated 04.07.2025 came to be passed.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, in accordance with law. No costs.
[K.SURENDER, J.] 20.01.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To 1.The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub-Collector, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
4.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
Page No. 5 of 6
K.SURENDER , J.
JEN 20.01.2026 Page No. 6 of 6