A.Periyakaruppan v. The Principal Secretary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :23.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1. A.Periyakaruppan

2. K.Chinnammal

3. C.Andichi ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary, And Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3. The Tahsildar, Sivagangai.

... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in K1/10853/2014 dated 01.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to grant Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner's for the lands in S.No.286 of Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner : M/s.S.R.Raghunathan for Mr.Arun Kumaar For Respondents :M/s.Ajmal Khan 1/6

Additional Advocate General I assisted by Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2024 passed by the first respondent and consequently, direct the first respondent to grant 'Ryotwari Patta' to the petitioner's for the lands in S.No.286 of Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

3. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not put on notice before the impugned orders were passed.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, refuting the aforesaid submission, submitted that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not in 2/6

accordance with the earlier order of this Court dated 14.02.2023 and that on this ground alone, the impugned order can be set aside.

5. Admittedly, this Court on 14.11.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.3111 of 2014, more particularly in paragraph 11, has passed the following order: "11.In the light of the above, the order passed by the first respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, namely proceedings No.K1/14408/2013 dated 07.01.2014, is set aside and the claim of the petitioners is remanded back to the first respondent and the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with Act XXVI/1948 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Pursuant to the above order of this Court, the impugned orders were passed on 01.08.2024.

6. Having gone through the impugned order, it is seen that the first respondent has stated that the observations of this Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 are inconsistent with the provisions laid down under Section 64(C) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into 3/6

Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948. The said observations/findings of the first respondent are not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in line with the order of this Court dated 14.11.2022, on merits and in accordance with law.

8. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.SURENDER, J) 23.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN 4/6

To

1. The Principal Secretary, And Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3. The Tahsildar, Sivagangai.

5/6

K.SURENDER, J.

PKN 23.02.2026 6/6