K.Loganadhan v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Writ Petition(MD)No.19450 of 2025 K.Loganadhan ..Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul.
2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Dindigul.
..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order Na.Ka.No.528/2024/A dated 23.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to issue separate patta in petitioner's name for the said landed property comprised in Survey No. 180/1A measuring about 5.40.5 Acres at Thalaiyuthu village, Palani Taluk , Dindigul District by considering petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2024.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Harish For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's representation seeking issuance of patta in his name in respect of the land measuring an extent of 2.20.25 acres, comprised in S.No. 180/1A, situated in Thalaiyuthu Village, Dindigul District.
2. According to the petitioner, the subject property is ancestral property and the patta for the same stands in his name under Patta No.
803. The official respondents had initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 for acquisition of the said property. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 691 of 1998, and by order dated 14.11.2003, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the said proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.12.2024 before the respondents 1 and 2 seeking restoration of the revenue records in his name. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.(MD) No. 3736 of 2025 before this 2/6
Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by issuing the following directions:- "6.In view of the above, there can be no impediment for the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for separate patta, in pursuance of the representation dated 17.12.2024 on merits and accordance with law. It is open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings to acquire the petitioner's land, by following the due process of law. However, it will not prevent the petitioner to be entitled to separate patta. The said exercise shall be completed in a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. Thereafter, the second respondent conducted an enquiry on the petitioner's representation seeking issuance of patta in his name and passed the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner's request for restoration of patta was rejected mainly on the ground that a fresh land acquisition notification had been issued on 27.11.2024 in respect of the subject property.
4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 18.07.2025, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents was directed to produce the fresh land acquisition notification allegedly issued on 27.11.2024, on the next date of hearing. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.08.2025, no such notification was produced before this 3/6
Court. Consequently, the second respondent was directed to file an affidavit explaining the basis on which the impugned order came to be passed, as if a fresh land acquisition notification had been issued on 27.11.2024.
5. Today, when the matter is again listed for hearing, the second respondent has not filed any affidavit as directed by this Court on 01.08.2025. It is therefore evident that, despite being afforded sufficient opportunity, the respondents have neither produced the alleged Land Acquisition Notification dated 27.11.2024 nor filed any affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the impugned order was passed on the premise of such a notification.
6. Under these circumstances, this Court has no option but to presume that there is no fresh land acquisition notification dated 27.11.2024, as mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, there is absolutely no impediment for the official respondents to consider the petitioner's request for restoration of the revenue records in his name. If, in future, a fresh land acquisition notification is issued by following the procedure established by law, it will always be open to the respondents to mutate the revenue records accordingly in terms of such notification. As on date, the respondents have not produced any records before this Court to establish that a fresh land acquisition notification dated 27.11.2024 has 4/6
been issued. In such circumstances, the respondents are bound to restore the revenue records in the petitioner's name, as they stood prior to the quashed notification.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent is quashed. The second respondent is directed to submit the necessary proposal before the jurisdictional Revenue Tahsildar for mutation of the revenue records within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such proposal, the jurisdictional Revenue Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders for restoration of the revenue records in the petitioner's name. No costs.
05.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul.
2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Dindigul.
5/6
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
skn Writ Petition(MD)No.19450 of 2025 05.08.2025 6/6