Elango v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.28034 and 28037 of 2025 Elango ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.
2.The Tahsildar, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
3.The Revenue Inspector, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 5555/2025/AA3 dated 25.10.2025 served on 4.11.2025 and consequential impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 27.11.2025 proposing to levy assessment, levy of penalty and proposed eviction from Survey No.69/2B measuring 3.62 acres in Chathirapatti Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, quash the same and 1/5
consequently direct the respondents herein to issue patta for Survey No. 69/2B measuring 3.62 acres in Chathirapatti Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, in the name of petitioner as per title documents in accordance with law within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for Mr.K.Maheshraja For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok (R1 to R3) Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking certiorarified mandamus challenging the show cause notice issued by the second respondent dated 25.10.2025 on the ground that the said notice was served to him only on 04.11.2025 and the said notice itself is not sustainable, since there is a civil Court decree passed as early as on 10.04.1968 in O.S.No.264 of 1966 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. 2.Since the proceedings impugned in this writ petition is only a show cause notice, the petitioner has an opportunity to submit his explanation. If the petitioner is aggrieved that time to give reply is not adequate, he could have given his representation and sought for considering his representation that has been given belatedly. 2/5
3.Unfortunately, he has approached this Court stating that necessary explanation to the show cause notice dated 30.11.2025 has already been sent to the respondents and he apprehends that they will not consider the said representation.
4.In view of the factual aspects involved in this case, this Court is of the view that even if the show cause notice was served belatedly and since the petitioner has submitted his explanation, the respondent shall consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
5.In light of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 09.12.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta 3/5
To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District.
2.The Tahsildar, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
3.The Revenue Inspector, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District.
4/5
DR.
G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.
AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
ta 09.12.2025 5/5