R.Muniappan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and W.M.P(MD) Nos.11213 and 11403 of 2025 R.Muniappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum- Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Revenue Divisional Office, Palani, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondents Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

records of the impugned proceedings No.M.R.4/196/Palani/Aa2, dated 31.08.2012 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently, directing the respondents to restore the assignment order in M.R.IV.196/DGL, dated 30.06.1982, by issuing "F" Patta pertaining to Survey No.318, to an extent of 3 Acres situated at Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 23.04.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Joseph Xavier For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed on the assumption that the assignment in favour of the petitioner dated 30.06.1982 was cancelled by virtue of impugned order.

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Joseph Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.It is not in dispute that the three acres of land in Survey No.318 Periyammapatti Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, was assigned in favour of the petitioner by the proceeding of the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms, Dindigul) in M.R.IV.196/DGL, dated 30.06.1982. The petitioner, in his affidavit, has stated that the assignment in his favour was cancelled by the impugned order without issuing any notice to him.

4. When the writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the assignment in favour of the petitioner was not at all cancelled by the impugned order and his name is not at all mentioned in the order impugned in this writ petition.

5. A perusal of the impugned order would suggest that the assignments in favour of various persons dated 29.08.2003, 17.04.2004 and 11.05.2005 were cancelled by virtue of the impugned order. However, the impugned order does not refer to the name of the petitioner

or the assignment order issued in his favour dated 30.06.1982. Therefore, the averments made by the petitioner, as if the impugned order cancelled the assignment in his favour, is not correct. It is also stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the assignment in favour of the petitioner was not at all cancelled by the impugned order.

6.The said statement made by the Additional Government Pleader is recorded and the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 11.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cp

To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer cum- Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Revenue Divisional Office, Palani, Dindigul District.

4.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

S.SOUNTHAR ,J cp W.P.(MD)No.14997 of 2025 Dated: 11.06.2025