M/S.Social Education For Rural Development (Serd), Manamadurai v. The Commissioner Of Land Administration
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :04.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP(MD) Nos.18617 and 18618 of 2025 M/s.Social Education For Rural Development (SERD), Manamadurai Rep. by its Secretary L.Pandi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
2. The District Collector, Sivagangai.
3. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai.
5. The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Manamadurai Sub Registrar Office, 1/7
Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent under impugned order dated 31.05.2006 under proceeding No. Na.Ka.C2-18467/1999 and to quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to issue Patta in favour of the petitioner for the property under Survey Nos. 285/1, 285/5, 285/6, Panikanendal Village, Mangulam Group, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District, in accordance to the Title of the said property. For Petitioner :Mr. K.R.Laxman For Respondents :Mr.B.Saravanan Addl. Government Pleader
O R D E R
By assignment order issued on 29.01.1985, lands in multiple survey numbers, including Survey Nos.285/1, 285/5 and 285/6, were assigned. As regards the above mentioned survey numbers, the lands in Survey No.285/5 were assigned to Saiyed Saardeen Ali; the lands in Survey No.285/1 were assigned to Mariyam Beevi; and the lands in Survey No.285/6 were assigned to Amener Beevi. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased these lands under three sale deeds executed in the 2/7
years 2003 and 2005 as per detail set out in paragraph 7 of the affidavit. The assignments were subsequently cancelled by order dated 31.05.2006, which is impugned herein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner became aware of the same on 22.08.2025 when the petitioner had visited the Tahsildar office. Learned counsel submits that the order is liable to be interfered with, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before such order was issued although the petitioner had purchased the property in 2003 and 2005. In addition, learned counsel submits that the same cancellation order was challenged in W.P.No.22048 of 2023 and the cancellation was quashed insofar as the petitioners therein were concerned. By referring to the order of this Court, learned counsel contends that the court considered all the grounds of cancellation, namely, non-cultivation for a period of three years, alienation in contravention of the terms of assignment and the Revenue Standing Orders and the undertaking of quarrying work instead of cultivation. He makes a request that the same order be followed. 3/7
3. In response, learned Additional Government Pleader relies upon the counter-affidavit dated 24.10.2025 of the District Revenue Officer. He points out that a writ appeal has been filed against order dated 19.03.2025 in W.P.No.22048 of 2023 and that such writ appeal is pending at the condone delay stage. Therefore, he submits that earlier order of this court may not be followed.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the said order was issued without notice to the petitioner although the petitioner was the owner of lands in Survey Nos.285/5, 285/1 and 285/6 by that time. Needless to say, these purchases being by registered conveyances, the necessary entries would have been made in the records of the Registrar of Assurances. The impugned order proceeds to record reasons for cancellation, such as non-cultivation for three years, alienation within the first ten years and quarrying activities.
5. If the petitioner had been put on notice, the petitioner would have been in a position to explain that the alienation in the petitioner's favour took place beyond the period of ten years when such alienation was prohibited as per the terms of assignment. The petitioner may have 4/7
also been in a position to offer an explanation with regard to noncultivation and quarrying. These are, however, factual aspects and it may not be appropriate to record conclusions thereon in course of these proceedings, especially when the challenge is primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.
6. Therefore, the order impugned herein is set aside only insofar as it relates to Assignment Nos.157/94 (corresponding to Survey No.285/5), 158/94 (corresponding to Survey No.285/1) and 159/94 (corresponding to Survey No.285/6). As a consequence, the matter is remanded to the District Revenue Officer for reconsideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04.11.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN 5/7
To
1. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 5.
2. The District Collector, Sivagangai.
3. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai.
5. The Tahsildar, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Manamadurai Sub Registrar Office, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
6/7
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN 04.11.2025 7/7