[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
N.Devarajan vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 23 February, 2026
W.P.(MD)No.4823 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER
W.P.(MD)No.4823 of 2026
and
W.P.(MD)No.4037 of 2026
N.Devarajan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Trichy,
Trichy District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Thiruverumbur,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the order
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.4823 of 2026
passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Rc.No.G1/57088/93 and
6851/94, dated 29.10.2001 by extending its benefits to the petitioner, who is
equally placed with the beneficiaries of the said order of the first respondent and
consequently, issue patta to the petitioner in the land in S.Nos.35/11 and 35/12,
admeasuring 2183 sq.fts. Kumbakkudy Village, M.G.R. Nagar, Trichy District, on
the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2025 within a time
frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Surya Prakash
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to implement the order passed by the first respondent in his
proceedings in Rc.No.G1/57088/93 and 6851/94, dated 29.10.2001 by extending
its benefits to the petitioner, who is equally placed with the beneficiaries of the
said order of the first respondent and consequently, issue patta to the petitioner in
the land in S.Nos.35/11 and 35/12, admeasuring 2183 sq.fts., situated at
Kumbakkudy Village, M.G.R. Nagar, Trichy District, on the basis of the
representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2025 within a time frame to be fixed
by this Court.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
subject lands were originally assigned to one M.Rose Mary and M.Manickam,
respectively, in the year 1982 by the Special Tahsildar. Thereafter, they jointly
executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of one Irudayasamy.
Subsequently, one M.Anothonysamy had purchased the said lands from the said
Irudayasamy. Thereafter, the said Anthonysamy plotted out the said land and sold
a portion of the land measuring an extent of 2183 sq.ft. in favour of
N.Parthasarathy by registered sale deed dated 16.10.1997. Thereafter, the said
Parthasarathy sold the said property to one D.Seenivasan by registered sale deed
dated 02.03.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the said property from
the said D.Seenivasan by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 08.03.2002 and
has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the
third respondent initiated proceedings to cancel the assignment. Aggrieved by the
cancellation order passed by the third respondent, an appeal was preferred before
the first respondent. By order dated 29.10.2001, the first respondent held that
there were violations of the conditions of assignment. However, taking note of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
fact that in most of the assigned lands, buildings had already been constructed
and that it would not be fair to cancel the assignments after a long lapse of time, it
was decided to reassign the lands to the persons actually in possession, subject to
verification of eligibility. In cases, where the occupants were not eligible for free
assignment, reassignment was to be made upon collection of double the market
value of the land. The matter was accordingly remitted to the third respondent for
fresh consideration.
4. It is further submitted that several similarly placed persons, who had
purchased lands from the original assignees, made representations seeking
implementation of the order dated 29.10.2001. However, no effective steps were
taken. Thereafter, the fifth respondent, by proceedings dated 19.09.2009,
addressed a communication to the second respondent recommending fixation of
market value at Rs.785/- per sq.m. (Rs.73/- per sq.ft.). The fourth respondent, by
proceedings dated 25.09.2009, also recommended fixation of market value at
Rs.785/- per sq.m. (Rs.73/- per sq.ft.). Based on the same, the second respondent,
by communication dated 07.10.2009, proposed fixation of the aforesaid amount
as the market value.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
5. It is further submitted that by proceedings dated 03.01.2013, the second
respondent directed the fifth respondent to obtain letters of consent from the
occupants agreeing to pay the land value as may be fixed by the Government.
Accordingly, notice dated 24.01.2013 was issued to the similarly placed
occupants, who had constructed houses on the land, requiring submission of
consent letters. The occupants complied with the said requirement. Despite the
same, no further action was taken to implement the order dated 29.10.2001. In the
meantime, the third respondent, by proceedings dated 05.01.2018, directed the
fifth respondent to issue free house pattas to eligible persons and, in respect of
others, to issue pattas upon payment of double the market value already fixed.
Thereafter, the fifth respondent, by proceedings dated 11.06.2020, issued notice
to the occupants directing them to appear on 16.06.2020 with relevant documents
for issuance of patta and payment of land value. The similarly placed persons
appeared and submitted consent letters agreeing to pay double the market value.
However, even thereafter, the order dated 29.10.2001 was not implemented.
6. It is further submitted that aggrieved over the same, similarly placed
occupants filed W.P.(MD)No.7129 of 2022 etc. batch, which was allowed by this
Court by order dated 05.08.2022. This Court directed the third respondent to issue
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
communications quantifying the amount payable as fixed in the year 2009,
together with interest at 4% per annum from 01.09.2009, and upon payment of
such amount, the fifth respondent was directed to issue patta. The said order was
challenged in W.A.(MD)No.310 of 2023 and was dismissed by the Division
Bench by judgment dated 27.03.2023. The same was subsequently confirmed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13168 of 2023,
dated 10.07.2023.
7. It is further submitted that thereafter, similarly placed persons filed W.P.
(MD)No.9767 of 2024 etc. batch seeking extension of the benefit of the order
dated 29.10.2001. By order dated 28.07.2025, this Court allowed the said writ
petitions subject to certain terms.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present
petitioner, being similarly placed, submitted a representation seeking extension of
the benefit of the order dated 29.10.2001 and issuance of patta upon payment of
double the market value, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the
earlier batch matters. However, no action has been taken on the said
representation. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in respect of
similarly placed persons, two categories were identified:
(i) those eligible for free patta; and
(ii) those required to pay double the market value.
The petitioner falls under the second category and is willing to pay double the
market value as fixed.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
11. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed,
directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in
the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court and, if the petitioner is found
eligible, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of
twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.)
Index : Yes / No 23.02.2026
smn2 (3/3)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
To:-
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Trichy,
Trichy District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Thiruverumbur,
Trichy District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
K.SURENDER, J.
smn2
23.02.2026
(3/3)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/02/2026 03:24:48 pm )
