Madras High CourtWP(MD)/6267/2023disposed of

Kulanthaivel. Sks v. The Secretary

2025-12-02Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.6267 of 2023 S.K.S.Kulanthaivel ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Cheppak, Chennai.

3. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

4. The Thasildar, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.

5. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Agricultural Regulated Thiru.V.Ka.Sipcot, Guindy, Chennai.

6. The Manager, Regulation Sales Hall, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.

1/6

7. The Secretary, Dindigul Agricultural Regulated Collector Office Campus, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2022 seeking the exchange of properties to facilitate the petitioner for using as pathway to reach his property and pass suitable order within the time limit as prescribed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Tamilmani For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya, Govt. Advocate.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.11.2022 seeking the exchange of properties to facilitate the petitioner for using as pathway to reach his property and pass suitable orders within the time limit as prescribed by this Court.

2/6

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having land to an extent of 1 Acre 2 Cents in S.No.13/1C of Ottanchathiram Village, Dindigul District. In 1992, out of 1 acre 2 cents, 48 cents were acquired by the Government for the use of respondents 5 to 7. After acquisition of the land, the petitioner has no pathway to reach his property. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation on 10.11.2022 for exchanging the properties to facilitate the petitioner for using as pathway to reach his property. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents 6 and 7. She further submits that if the representation of the petitioner is revoked by the respondents 6 and 7, then the respondents 1 to 4 have to find out a suitable land and acquired the same and fixed the value for the said land. After payment of valuation amount, the said land would be handed over to the petitioner.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner has no pathway to reach his 3/6

land, it is the duty of the respondents to find out a suitable land for the pathway. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2022, on merits and in accordance with law, by taking into consideration of the petitioner's proposal for exchange of the land. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

02.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vsm 4/6