Periathambi vs The District Revenue Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 3801 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3801 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2025

Madras High Court

Periathambi vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 March, 2025

                                                                                     W.P.(MD) No.18957 of 2017


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 11.03.2025

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

                                          W.P.(MD) No.18957 of 2017
                                                    and
                                          W.M.P(MD)No.15317 of 2017

                 1.Periathambi
                 2.Saravanan                                                          ... Petitioners
                                                               vs.
                 1.The District Revenue Officer,
                   Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

                 2.The Sub Collector cum Revenue
                   Divisional Officer,
                   Revenue Divisional Office,
                   Devakottai, Sivagangai District.

                 3.The Tahsildar,
                   Taluk Office,
                   Thiruppathur,
                   Sivagangai District.

                 4.S.Kumar                                                             ... Respondents

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                 issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pursuant to the first
                 respondent impugned proceedings in Pa.Mu.B4/34/17, dated 22.09.2017 and
                 quash the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:23 pm )

                 1/6
                                                                                         W.P.(MD) No.18957 of 2017


                                     For Petitioners       : Mr.J.John

                                    For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai
                                                      Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

                                                               No Appearance for R4

                                                              ORDER

The petitioners challenge the impugned order of the first respondent in

Pa.Mu.B4/34/17, dated 22.09.2017.

2.The grievance of the petitioners is that despite specific directions of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.276 of 2017 dated

28.03.2017, directing the first respondent herein to issue notice to the writ

petitioners herein as well as the first respondent in the writ appeal and the fifth

respondent in the writ appeal and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to all

the parties and thereafter, pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with

law, the first respondent, without even issuing any notice to the petitioners herein,

passed the impugned order.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also invite my attention to

the intimation sent by the second petitioner on 20.04.2017 seeking for an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:23 pm )

opportunity to be given to the petitioner. Despite the directions of the Hon'ble

Divisional Bench of this Court as well as the personal request made by the second

petitioner, the impugned order does not reflect the factum of any notice being

issued to the petitioners prior to the orders being passed.

4.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1483

of 2018, dated 01.02.2019 [The District Collector and another Vs. Elango] and

also a decision of this Court in Seriya Pushpam, Rep. By her power of attorney

M.Jayakumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land

Administration, Chepauk, Chennai & others reported in 2021-1-Writ L.R. 568,

and would contend that the exercise of issuing a direction to the first respondent

may be only an exercise in futility since subsequent to the order of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court, this Court has consistently held that the assignment

cannot be cancelled beyond a period of three years from the date of assignment,

especially when such assignment is made prior to 1973.

5.I have gone through the said decisions. Both these decisions came to be

rendered pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court, where the petitioners were the appellants themselves. Therefore, it may not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 06:24:23 pm )

be proper for me, sitting as Single Judge to overrule the directions issued by the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. At the same time, the petitioners are

certainly entitled to the benefit of the subsequent Judgments of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court, which have also been followed subsequently by the

learned Single Judge in 2021 to the effect that the assignments made prior to 1973

cannot be cancelled beyond the period of 3 years from the date of assignment.

6.In such view of the matter, while the first respondent is considering the

matter afresh, he shall take into account the ratio laid down by this Court in the

above two decisions and thereafter, following the directions of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.276 of 2017, shall take a final

decision on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.