Pethan Alias Palanisamy v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.27223 and 27224 of 2025 Pethan @ Palanisamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director of Survey &Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
1/6
5.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
6.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Palani, Dindigul 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 of the 5th Respondent and to Quash the order dated 14-12-2023, passed in Na.Ka.No.787021/2023/D1, and consequently direct the 5th Respondent to issue a Patta in the name of the Petitioner for 35 Cents of lands comprised in S.F.No. 49 of Rettaiyambadi Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondents : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Spl. Government Pleader.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The writ petitioner was in occupation of a piece of poramboke land. He was dispossessed. He filed W.P.(MD)No.2473 of 2023. This 2/6
Court vide order dated 10.02.2023 called upon the District Collector, Dindigul to consider the petitioner's request for allotment of an alternative land. Pursuant thereto, enquiry was conducted and the District Collector, Dindigul rejected the petitioner's request vide proceedings dated 14.12.2023. This order is put to challenge in this writ petition after lapse of close to two years.
3.We could have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. But we do not want to do so. Instead, we shall rest our order on a more substantial ground.
4.Admittedly, the writ petitioner does not have any legal right as such to demand allotment of an alterative site. The District District has not cryptically rejected the writ petitioner's request. Formal representation in writing was obtained from the writ petitioner and report was also obtained from the jurisdictional Revenue Authorities including the Tahsildar, Palani. After considering all the relevant materials, the District Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be allotted an alterative site. It is a well considered order. In such matters, the scope for judicial review is also fairly limited. 3/6
5.In this view of the matter, we decline to sustain the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (G.R.S.J.,) & (B.P.J.,) 27.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:- 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Director of Survey &Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
4/6
5.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
6.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Palani, Dindigul District.
5/6
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ias 27.11.2025 6/6