← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22241/2025dismissed

Rajesh v. The District Collector

2025-08-14Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 14/08/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP (MD). No.22241 of 2025 and WMP(MD) No.17349 of 2025 Rajesh ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Theni District, Collectorate Building, Theni.

2. VAO Grievance Committee, Represented by its the Chairperson/ the Personal Assistant to Collector (Land), Collectorate Building, Theni.

3. Thangaraj, Village Administrative Officer, Odaipatti Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District..

... 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 relating to the impugned proceedings in E.Ko.No.A6/2737933 (CLR/REV/8725)/2024 dated 28.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same as illegal and consequently direct 1/8

the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry as per the guidelines issued by this Court in WP(MD) No.13916 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 and take necessary action against the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Arvind Pawlraj For Respondents : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran for R1 &R2 Special Government Pleader

ORDER

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging impugned proceedings in E.Ko.No.A6/2737933 (CLR/REV/8725)/2024 dated 28.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry as per the guidelines issued by this Court in WP(MD) No.13916 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 and take necessary action against the 3rd respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2024.

3. The facts in nutshell is as follows:

The petitioner had purchased a piece of land for valid 2/8

consideration. In order to survey the said land, the petitioner approached the Village Administrative Officer, Firka Surveyor, Head Surveyor and the Tahsildar by paying necessary fees. However, the Village Administrative Officer/3rd respondent had not surveyed the land. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue legal notices to the third respondent and the third respondent refused to receive the same and therefore, the petitioner preferred a representation to the 1st respondent for constituting VAO Grievance Committee and accordingly, the first respondent constituted the said committee on 06.01.2025 and notice was also sent to the petitioner and the petitioner could not attend the said enquiry conducted on 10.01.2025.

In the meantime, the petitioner preferred a consumer complaint against the Additional Director of Land Survey, Tahsildar, Head Surveyor and the Firka Surveyor. The said complaint was entertained and an award for a sum of Rs.30,000/- was passed as compensation apart from Rs.10,000/- as costs. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent herein issued notice on 27.02.2025 for the enquiry to be conducted on 14.03.2025, which was received by the petitioner on 08.03.2025.

to the 1st respondent for constituting a fresh committee and as such, a committee was constituted and it had conducted enquiry on 24.04.2025. However, not being satisfied with the enquiry conducted, the petitioner requested the conduct of enquiry in a private place, however, since the same was refused, the petitioner sent a representation on 25.04.2025 and the same was rejected. Since the respondents had failed to follow the guidelines framed in WP(MD) No.13916 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is the duty cast upon the Village Administrative Officer to receive the letters and to do the needful in the revenue department, however, the third respondent has refused the legal notice, which was sent by the petitioner, which itself is termed as 'dereliction of duty' in terms of Rule 20 of the Tamilnadu Government Servants Conduct Rules (Integrity and Devotion to Duty). It is therefore submitted that the 2nd respondent had not followed the guidelines enumerated in WP(MD) No.13916 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 and the second respondent had simply accepted the statement of the third respondent and for such act, action ought to have 4/8

been initiated against the 2nd respondent.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that if at all the petitioner wants to measure/survey the property, he ought to have approached the concerned officials under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act and as per the said Act, Chapter III, a procedure is contemplated and the competent person to survey the land is only a Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer is not the competent Authority to survey the land. However, without approaching the concerned department or officials, the petitioner has unnecessarily filed a writ petition. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for dismissal.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is seen that the petitioner has approached the respondents for survey of the lands. However, instead of approaching the concerned officials under the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, the petitioner 5/8

has unnecessarily approached the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyors and had also gone to the extent of filing a consumer complaint and had also obtained an award. The petitioner had a habit of not only approaching the inappropriate officials/department but also had made several complaints, however, all those complaints were entertained and rejected. It is also seen that the writ petition is filed unnecessarily invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even though the petitioner's complaint was entertained and the Village Administrative Officer was given warning, even then, the petitioner had filed this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, which, in the considered view of this Court, has to be necessarily dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

14.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR 6/8

To

1. The District Collector,, Dindigul District..

2. The Deputy Registrar,, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Palani..

3. The Joint Registrar,, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Palani..

4. The Secretary,, D.D.529, Perichipalayam Primary Agriculture Credit Society Perichipalayam, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 7/8

M.DHANDAPANI,J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.22241 of 2025 Date : 14/08/2025 8/8