Madras High Court
Chinnadurai vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.5708 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
WP(MD)No.5708 of 2025
Chinnadurai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Illupur Revenue Division, Illupur,
Pudukottai District.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5708 of 2025
6.The Tahsildar,
Ponnamaravathi Taluk,
Ponnamaravathi,
Pudukottai District.
7.R.Palanisamy
(R7 impleaded vide Court order dated
21.04.2025 inWMP(MD)No.6078/2025) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose the
petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2024 relating to reclassification of
land in respect of survey number S.F.No.299/3 for an extent of 0.05.0
Hectres situated at Keelathaniyam Village, Ponnamaravathi Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Malathi
Additional Government Pleader for R1-6
: Mr.Babu Rajendran for R7
ORDER
I have heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has made an application for reclassification of the lands and
the said application dated 22.07.2024 is pending before the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner only seeks for
expeditious disposal of the said representation by issuance of a writ of
mandamus.
3. Per contra, Mr.Babu Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for
the newly impleaded 7th respondent would submit that the petitioner has
not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed various
orders passed by this Court, touching upon the very same issue. In this
connection, he would refer to the order passed at the earliest point of
time, where one R.Sundaram filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.
(MD)No. 21382 of 2017, seeking to remove the encroachments,
including the petitioner's occupation, against the petitioner. The said writ
petition was allowed and alleging wilful disobedience, Cont.P.(MD)No.
544 in 2019 was filed by the said R.Sundaram and the contempt petition
was closed, accepting the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for
the official respondents that the Tashildar has already passed an order on
09.08.2019. Thereafter, one more contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.
652 of 2020 was filed by Mr.R.Sundaram. The said contempt petition
was closed with a direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
petitioner within a period of six weeks. The writ petitioner thereafter
preferred WP(MD)No. 15017 of 2020 seeking a direction to dispose of
his appeal within a period of six months. The said writ petition was
disposed of, granting six months time from 20.10.2020. The petitioner
filed one more writ petition, to consider his application for stay pending
the appeal before the revisional authority. The said writ petition was also
disposed of, directing the stay application to be taken up. Thereafter the
7th respondent herein has filed a public interest litigation in W.P.
(MD)No. 12919 of 2024, seeking to remove the encroachments. The said
writ petition was ordered by Hon'ble Division Bench on 25.06.2024,
granting six months time for removing the encroachments. Thereafter, the
petitioner came forward with W.P.(MD)No. 21876 of 2024, challenging
the order of removal of encroachment. The said writ petition was
disposed of, directing the writ petitioner to make alternate arrangements
and handover possession within a period of six months from 12.09.2024.
Contempt Petition filed by R.Sundaram was thereafter closed recording
that eviction order was passed against the writ petitioner. It is thereafter
that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
disposal of the representation for reclassification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
4. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Babu Rajendran, learned counsel
for the seventh respondent even in the earlier writ petition, the very same
prayer was sought for by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.21876 of 2024,
prayer sought is as follows:
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order of the sixth Respondent vide his proceedings
in O.Mu.8730/2018/A2 dated 03.09.2024 and quash the
same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents to
consider petitioners application for reclassification of land
dated 22.07.2024 pending on the file of the 2nd Respondent
within in time frame fixed in this Court.”
5. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of
the said writ petition, the following order is as follows:
“2.The petitioner is found to have committed
encroachment on S.F.No.299/3 which has been classified
as “water body”. The petitioner suffered order under
Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,
1905. The appeals and revisions filed by him have also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
been dismissed. The petitioner has not challenged the
order passed in revision so far. The impugned
memorandum dated 03.09.2024 is only consequential in
nature. Without there being a challenge to the primary
order, challenge to the consequential proceedings is
clearly not maintainable.
3.We went through the photographs enclosed in
the typed set of papers. It is seen that a pucca house has
been put up. Considering the special facts and
circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents not
to enforce the order for a period of six months. We grant
such a long time so that the petitioner can make
alternative arrangements in the meanwhile.
4.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ”
6. Now, the petitioner has renewed his request for considering his
application for reclassification of land, again seeking orders pertaining to
the very same representation dated 22.07.2024. The learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that the said prayer of the writ petitioner,
seeking reclassification of land under representation dated 22.07.2024
was not addressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
order dated 12.09.2024 and therefore, according to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the said application for reclassification is still pending
and has to be necessarily considered by the authorities. However,
I am unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner for the simple reason that this Court has not granted the relief
as prayed for by the petitioner and has chosen to mould the relief by
rejecting the contentions of the writ petitioner, on the ground that the
order passed under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,
which were already challenged by way of appeal and revision and same
were dismissed. Subsequently, Government Order has also been passed
directing the respondents to remove the encroachment. However,
considering the fact that the petitioner has put up a pucca house and
treated it as a special case, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the
respondents not to enforce the order of eviction for a period of six
months and directed the petitioner to make alternate arrangements. In the
meantime, now it is not open to the petitioner to contend that his prayer
for reclassification was left open and the said issue has not been
addressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. If so, the petitioner ought to
have filed a review seek clarification of the order passed by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
Division Bench. I am unable to entertain the present writ petition
renewing the request made under representation dated 22.07.2024, under
the guise of reclassification of the lands, based on the error committed
during the UDR In any event the petitioner, in all fairness has not even
disclosed the earlier writ petition, not only filed by the petitioner himself
but also by the newly impleaded 7th respondent and one R.Sundaram,
which also resulted to led to contempt proceedings as well. It is
unfortunate that the petitioner was a party to the writ petitions. In fact,
two of them were filed by the petitioner himself. The petitioner should
have disclosed the factum of the said writ petition and the result of the
same.
7. The learned for the 7th respondent would place reliance on
decision the of the Hon'ble Supreme Court S.Tirupathi Rao V.
M.Lingamaiah reported in 2024-SCC Online SC 1764, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
“8. The present lis confronts us primarily with two
inter-related legal issues.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
The first one requires us to examine whether the
parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC for
exercising the power of review, as interpreted by this
Court in its numerous judgments, were at all satisfied for
the High Court to embark on an exercise of review. The
second issue requiring our consideration is the terminus
a quo for commencement of the point of limitation in
matters of contempt, in the light of provisions of section
20 of the Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution
and rule 21 of the Writ Rules. This would, in turn, require
us to examine whether the contempt petition could have
been held to be maintainable by the High Court on the
ground of the appellant having continued to observe the
order (directing mutation to be effected) in the breach; in
other words, whether there was a continuing wilful
breach of the order of the Single Judge dated 5th March,
2009, amounting to civil contempt. These being
preliminary legal issues are proposed to be dealt with at
the outset. Needless to observe, hardly any other issue
would survive for decision should any of these issues be
answered in favour of the appellant and against the first
respondent.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
8. He would also reply upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the Supreme Court in Leelawati (Dead) V. State of U.P., in
Civil Appeal No.1438 of 2025 dated 04.02.2025, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
“9. It is necessary to observe that the proceedings
in the Court of law are initiated for adjudication of
disputes and to provide justice to the parties, by which
trust and confidence of the litigants reposed on this great
institution can be maintained. In case one of the parties
misuse the said process or attempt to obtain an order by
trick and strategem, the Courts would be justified in
imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation.
In our view, the cost imposed by the High Court in a sum
of Rs.20,000/- is meagre, which deserves to be increased
to Rs.50,000/-, as the petitioner has proceeded to pursue
his vexatious claim even before this Court. Said costs
shall be deposited before the Uttar Pradesh State Legal
Services Authority, Allahabad.”
Therefore the learned counsel for the seventh respondent would pray for
the writ petition being dismissed with exemplary costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
9. It is true that writ petitioner has not disclosed the earlier writ
petitions, which have a definite bearing on the present case. As already
referred herein above, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the factum
of the earlier writ petitions having been filed and disposed. In fact, the
writ petitioner was granted six months time by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court, to make alternate arrangements and vacate. Even at
that point of time, the Division Bench was aware of the request of the
writ petitioner by way of representation dated 22.07.2024 for
reclassification of lands in survey Nos.240/1 and 240/2, but did not grant
any relief in that regard. It can only be taken that the Hon'ble Division
Bench negatived the said request. Therefore, it is not open to the
petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. In any event, petitioner
has also not approached the Court with clean hands. I am not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
However, considering the facts of the present case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No 21.04.2025
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 5.
3.The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Illupur Revenue Division,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
Illupur, Pudukottai District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Ponnamaravathi Taluk,
Ponnamaravathi,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
P.B. BALAJI, J.
LS
Order made in
Dated:
21.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:23:26 pm )
