Subramaniyan.S.K v. The Principal Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.14653 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)No.12371 of 2023 Subramaniyan.S.K
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Madurai.
3. The Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Collectorate, Madurai.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 not to interfere the petitioners land in S.No.87/6 to the extent of 1 Acre 24 cents and in S.No. 87/7 to the extent of 1 Acre 14 Cents totally 2 Acre 38 Cents situated Vilacheri Village, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District by consider the petitioners representation dated -.03.2023 and 07.03.2023 within a time stipulated by this court and for other consequential reliefs.
1/4
For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader
ORDER
After submitting multiple representations in relation to lands in S.Nos. 87/6 and 87/7 of an aggregate extent of 2 acres 38 cents, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above mentioned lands were purchased by his father on 04.12.1969 under registered sale deed bearing document No.3721 of 1969. He further submits that the land was purportedly acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, but his father did not receive any compensation. 3.Learned Special Government Pleader invited my attention to the representation submitted by the petitioner in March 2023. He points out that such representation was submitted on the basis that Act 31 of 1978 was not valid and that all acquisitions made in terms thereof were also not valid. On this issue, he has placed on record the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Anandhi Ammal and others(1995 1 SCC 519) upholding the constitutional validity of Act 31 of 1978 and setting aside the 2/4
judgment of this Court, to the contrary. He also points out that after the acquisition, the land has been allotted to 134 beneficiaries. 4.Even from the representations of the petitioner, it is clear that the land was acquired under Act 31 of 1978 by issuing award No.3 of 1980. The validity of the enactment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anandi Ammal. In these circumstances, the representations submitted by the petitioner about 43 years after the said acquisition cannot be countenanced. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the consideration of such representation. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
23.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 3/4
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J.
RJR To
1. The Principal Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Madurai.
3. The Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Collectorate, Madurai. W.P.(MD)No.14653 of 2023 23.10.2025 4/4