Madras High Court
A.Narayanan vs Ranganathan (Deceased) on 25 October, 2025
Author: S. M .Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
WA No. 64 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No. 64 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.569 of 2021
A.Narayanan
S/o Abimannan No.80-c, School St.,
Kattukuppam Village, Manapet,
Puduchery State 607 402.
...Appellant(s)
Vs
Ranganathan (deceased)
Ettiyan (deceased)
Mangalakshmi (deceased)
Dhanam (deceased)
1.Murugesan S/o Kathirvel,
Residing at Pallor Village Puducherry
2.Kanagavalli
W/o Ranganathan, Res At, Paloor
Village, Puducherry,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
WA No. 64 of 2021
Anjalai (Deceased)
3.The Government of Puducherry
Rep. by its Secretary
Land Revenue Department
Puducherry.
4.Commissioner of Land Reforms
Govt. Of Puducherry Land Revenue
Department, Puduherry.
5.The Sub-collector
(Revenue – South)
Government of Puducherry, Villianur,
Puducherry.
Shanmugam (deceased)
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER
The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order made in W.P. No.22316 of 2009 dated 05.11.2019.
For Appellant(s): Mr. R. Bharani Dharan
For Respondent(s): No appearance for R1 and R2
Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 to R5 (Pondicherry)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
WA No. 64 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. M .SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Writ Court order dated 05.11.2019 in W.P.No.22316 of 2009 is under
challenge in the intra-Court Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Pondicherry, passed an order
in proceedings dated 22.01.1990 that Abhimannan and Shanmugam were the
cultivating tenants in the subject lands as described in the writ proceedings.
The Authorised Officer verified the bona fides of the application filed by the
above two persons in Form 14 dated 14.09.1976 and declared them as
cultivating tenants in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-rule (4) of
Rule 24 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land and
Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1975. Consequently, Abhimannan and
Shanmugam were allowed to continue in possession of surplus lands bearing
R.S.No.13 of Manapet Village measuring 0.99.00 Hec. on lease from 1976
onwards i.e. from the date of taking possession by the Government subject to
various conditions stipulated in sub rule (5) of Rule 24 of Pondicherry Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land and Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules,
1975. The above benefit was granted subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners should pay the arrears of lease amount
from 1976 to be fixed by the Government and also give an
undertaking to the effect that they will pay arrears of rent as
fixed by Government within 15 days from the date of this order.
(ii) Thiru.Abhimannan shall continue in possession of land
bearing R.S.No.13 of Manapet Village measuring 0.99.00 Hec. as
lessee of Government while Thiru.Shanmugam shall continue in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
possession of lands measuring 1.32.00 Hect. as lessee of
Government.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that
pursuant to the orders of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Pondicherry,
dated 22.01.1990, the appellant, who is the son of Abimannan continue to
cultivate the land and in possession.
4. Mr. V.Adhimoolam filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6863 of 2008
seeking a direction to the respondents in the said Writ Petition to implement
the assignment order in respect of the lands bearing in S.Nos.13/11 and 14/1
situate of Manapet revenue village by putting writ petitioner in possession of
the assigned lands. The contention in the writ petition was that they are the
assignees, but possession was not handed over to them. The Writ Court
passed an order on 13.08.2008, directing the Authorised Officer-cum-Deputy
Collector (Revenue) South, Government of Puducherry, to pass appropriate
orders within a period of two months.
5. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.6863 of 2008, the Authorised
Officer under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land and
Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1975, conducted an enquiry and passed
final orders in proceedings dated 04.12.2008. The findings in the said order
reads as under:-
“Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-rule (4) of the Rule 24 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land, Compensation for and Disposal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
Surplus Lands) Rules, 1975, I, Dr.Franklin Laltinkhuma, I.A.S.,
Authorised Officer, hereby order that Thiru.A.Narayanan
S/o.Abimannan (Late) shall continue in possession of surplus
land at R.S.No.13 to an extent 0-99-00 Ha and Thiru.Shanmugam
S/o.Krishnakavundar shall continue in possession of surplus land
to an extent 1-32-00 Ha at R.S.No.13 of Manapet Revenue Village
as lessees of Govt. subject to the condition that they should pay
rent arrears from the year 2002 to till date in one lumpsum within
fifteen days from the date of this order and the lease may be
renewed subject to the conditions stipulated in sub rule 5 of Rule
24 of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land,
Compensation for and Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1975.”
6. Challenging the above order dated 04.12.2008, seven writ petitioners
filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.22316 of 2009. In the said Writ Petition, the
impugned Writ Order has been passed on 05.11.2019 and challenging the
said order, present Writ Appeal came to be instituted. The Sub-Collector
(Revenue) South-cum-Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Government of
Puducherry filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.22316 of 2009. In paragraph
Nos.4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, the status of the appellant's father and the
appellant as cultivating tenants have been reiterated by the Authorised Officer
and the said paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“4. I submit that the Authorised Officer invited
applications for distribution of surplus lands to the landless
poor. After considering the respective claims of applicants, he
had sent notices of provisional assignment, in form 39 whereby
they were required to pay assessment amount and offer their
willingness for the assignment. The petitioners 2 and 5 herein
who are the original assignee and the other petitioners who
were the legal heirs of the original assignees, failed to offer
their willingness and execute deed of assignment in Form 40 as
required. They also failed to use the land for a long period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
time from the date of provisional assignment. Form 39 is a
formal notice to be issued to the assignees intimating the
proposed assignment on the payment of assessment amount
and the assignment order will be issued after getting their
willingness and on execution of deed of assignment in Form 40.
Thereafter, mere service of notice in Form 39 does not confer
any right to the petitioners over the land.
5. I submit that the fourth and fifth respondents herein
were the cultivating tenants of the land in question before the
intimation of land reforms proceedings against the assesses.
Thiru Thanappa Diagou and Jaganou Diagou and therefore they
have submitted application under Section 17(5) of “Land
Reforms Act” to allow them to continue the cultivation as
cultivating tenant after assignment of the quantum of the
surplus land. Initially the request of the fourth and fifth
respondents were rejected on the ground that they could not
establish their tenancy at the time of taking possession of
surplus land and subsequently as per the order of the Land
Commissioner vide order dated 24.7.1979 the Authorized Officer
th
has conducted a detailed enquiry and confirmed that the 4 and
th
5 respondents were the cultivating tenants of the land in
question and issued orders to continue in possession of the
land as lessee under the Government vide order dated
22.1.1990. Even as the petitioners were well aware of all these
developments, they did not challenge the orders passed by the
Authorized Officer. Therefore, they are estopped from
challenging the subsequent order passed by then Authorized
Officer as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court vide
order No.2748/ DCRS/LR/C1/2007 dated 4.12.2008. Hence, the
question of allowing the petitioners to put in possession of the
land does not arise.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
7. Presuming that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.22316 of 2009 were the
original assignees of the year 1976, the counter affidavit filed by the
Authorised Officer shows that those alleged assignees have not complied with
the conditions stipulated in the order of assignment nor possession has been
handed over to those assignees. Thus, the claims set out by those assignees
after several years cannot be entertained. The status of the appellant as
cultivating tenant has been recognised initially in the year 1990 and
subsequently, in the year 2008 by the Authorised Officer based on the orders
of Writ Court directing the authorities to decide the issues on merits. That
apart, the first order passed by the Authorised Officer in proceedings dated
22.01.1990 recognising the father of the appellant as cultivating tenant
remains unchallenged. However, by filing a Writ Petition in the year 2008, after
a lapse of about 18 years from the date of order passed by the Authorised
Officer, Writ Petition came to be instituted and the Court directed the
Authorised Officer to pass an order on merits. Thus, it is apparently clear that
a dead cause of action had been restored after several years by instituting a
Writ Petition, which is impermissible.
8. Practise of filing writ petitions to consider and dispose of the
representation has been adopted by the litigations on some occasions to
restore the dead cause of action. When representations are sent and writ
petitions have been filed, the Writ Courts normally direct the authority to
consider and pass appropriate orders. Once, such an order is passed, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
merits, it is taken as a fresh cause for the purpose of re-adjudication of
issues, which were already adjudicated or become final. Such practice
prevailing presently amongst the litigants at no circumstances be encouraged
by the High Court. Even for issuing a direction to consider representation,
person approaching the Court has to establish his rights and representation
must be entertainable under law. In the absence of any right or entertainability
of a petition, no direction can be issued even to consider and dispose of the
same. Such directions would do no service to the cause of justice but, litigants
either restore the dead cause of action or lead to multiplicity of litigations.
Either of circumstances cannot be appreciated since it would result in abuse
of judicial process. In the present case, the right of the appellant was
recognised as cultivating tenant by the Authorised Officer vide order dated
22.01.1990. The said order remains unchallenged. In 2008, a fresh Writ
Petition was filed holding that Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6863 of 2008 were
assignees of the year 1976. However, the counter filed by the Government
would show that the assignment conditions were not complied. Pursuant to
the orders in the Writ Petition, once again Authorised Officer's order dated
04.12.2008 reiterated and recognised appellant as cultivating tenant. The said
order alone came to be challenged. Therefore, the Writ Petition per se is not
entertainable since the original order dated 22.01.1990 became final and
remains unchallenged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the relief granted by
the Writ Court in favour of the respondents is not in consonance with the facts
established as well as the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. Therefore, the impugned Writ Order dated 05.11.2019 in
W.P.No.22316 of 2009 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.)
25-10-2025
ASI
Index :Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Internet :Yes
To
1.Murugesan S/o Kathirvel,
Pallor Village Puducherry
2.Kanagavalli
W/o Ranganathan,
Paloor Village, Puducherry.
3.The Secretary,
Government of Puducherry
Land Revenue Department
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
4.The Commissioner Of Land Reforms
Government of Puducherry Land
Revenue Department, Puduherry.
5.The Sub-collector
(Revenue – South)
Government of Puducherry, Villianur,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
ASI
25-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 01:32:58 pm )
