[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
T.Kumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 March, 2026
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
WP(MD) NO. 5843 of 2026 and
WMP(MD)No.4873 of 2026
1. T.Kumar
2. S.MANORANJITHIAM
3. T.ANANTHALATHA
4. T.ANNAM
5. MUTHUPUSHPAM
6. CALEB RAJA
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Secretariat
Chennai.
2. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms
Chepauk
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thiruchendur Division
Thoothukudi.
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.R.Sundar
for Mr.K. Moorthy
For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 06:39:07 pm )
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned notice dated 12.02.2026 in D1/R.P.No.04/2024 (L.Ref) issued by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the 2nd respondent from
reopening or rehearing the concluded proceedings.
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned notice dated 12.02.2026 in D1/R.P.No.04/2024
(L.Ref) issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently forbear the 2nd respondent
from reopening or rehearing the concluded proceedings.
2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners' father purchased the property in
survey No.52/1, to an extent of 1 acre 80 cents in Nattathi Village in Document No.
139/1981 on 30.03.1981. Thereafter, the petitioners' father was in possession of the
property. After mutation of revenue records, the respondents issued notice under
Section 9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act to the Late.Muthu Vaikunda Nadar
who is the father's vendor but the said person has not disclosed the fact that the said
land was sold to the petitioners' father Thangapandi. Therefore, the respondents have
not issued any notice to the said Thangapandi. Subsequently, the said proceedings
was heard and concluded, in which the land was declared as a surplus. Based on the
order, a portion of the land was assigned to one Narayanan on 31.08.2007. In the
meanwhile, the petitioners' father died on 19.05.2007 and is succeeded by the legal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 06:39:07 pm )
heirs of Thangapandi. The petitioners had attended the proceedings and adjudicated
the same. After elaborate arguments, the Commissioner of Land Reforms allowed the
R.P.No.17 of 2013 vide order dated 09/07/2014, thereby the assignment given to
Narayanan was cancelled and it was directed to restore the patta in the name of the
legal heirs of Thangapandi. Thereafter, patta was also granted vide order dated
01/01/2015 to the petitioners / the legal heirs of Thangapandi.
3.In the meanwhile, Narayanan filed W.P.(MD).Nos.23240 of 2015 and 8960 of 2016
to set aside the order dated 09/07/2017. The said writ petitions were taken up and a
common order was passed, vide order dated. 28.11.2023 wherein the matter was
remanded to the Land Commissioner for fresh consideration. Based on the remand
order, the case was reheard in R.P.No.4 of 2024 and a final order was passed on
03/02/2026, wherein it is held as under:
"11. Further, the case was posted for another hearing on 21.01.2026. On that
day the petitioner Thiru R.Narayanan offered his willingness in writing for
getting alternate land to an extent of 1.69 acres in SF.No. 596/2B of
Kodaganallur Village, Tirunelveli District after his inspection of the above
said land. (Annexure 7) "
The said order states that the said Narayanan's assignment was cancelled. Moreover,
he was granted alternative land to an extent of 1 acre 69 cents in Survey No.596/2B
in Kodungallur Village. Therefore, the said Narayanan is also not interested in the
litigation at all.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 06:39:07 pm )
4.When the matter being so and when the entire issue has been settled, the present
impugned notice has been issued for rehearing the case which is totally unnecessary.
Hence, the impugned notice is quashed and the original revision order, dated
09/07/2014 is restored and the consequential patta issued on 29.01.2015 is restored in
the name of the petitioner.
5.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24-03-2026
Tmg
To
1.Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Secretariat
Chennai.
2. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms
Chepauk
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thiruchendur Division
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 06:39:07 pm )
