Thiruppathi.A v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY A.Thiruppathi.

... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. The Block Development Officer, Reddiyarchathiram Panchayath Union, Dindigul District.

4. The President, Sullerumbu Village Panchayat, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to pay the adequate compensation for illegal acquisition of the petitioner's landed property of an extent of 12 1/2 Cents comprised in Survey No.471/1E situated at Sullerumbu Village, 1/5

Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District, for the purpose of laying the road by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2023 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr. J. Lawrance For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate for R1 to R3 No appearance for R4

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the respondents herein to pay the adequate compensation for illegal acquisition of the petitioner's landed property of an extent of 12 1/2 cents comprised in Survey No.471/1E, situated at Sullerumbu Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District, for the purpose of laying the road by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2023 within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, in which patta No.3 stood in the name of his father. However, the respondents 3 and 4 had laid a tar road on the petitioner's patta land. Hence, he has given representation on 05.06.2023 seeking compensation for the land acquired from him. However, till date, no action has been taken. Hence, the present case. 2/5

3. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the subject land is marked as 'Nilaviyal Vandi Pathai' and therefore, the road has been laid and further, the subject land is not patta land.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the subject land is the patta land.

5. This Court has heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. According to the petitioner, the subject land is a patta land. However, according to the respondents, the subject land is a 'Nilaviyal Vandi Pathai'. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to ascertain as to whether the subject land is a patta land or vandi pathai and further, consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2023, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3/5

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. NCS : Yes/No 12.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District.

3. The Block Development Officer, Reddiyarchathiram Panchayath Union, Dindigul District.

4/5

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY .,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN 12.12.2025 5/5