Allowed

K.Sekar v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC24 Sept 2024WP(MD)/22634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 invoking the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act. The court issued a mandamus directing the Tahsildar to register the petitioners as cultivating tenants for specific land based on their prior continuous cultivation since 1960 and a subsequent oral modification of lease terms. The respondents were directed to dispose of the peti

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 20.08.2024 and pass orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

K.Sekar Vs The Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

1.K.Sekar

2.K.Ramamoorthy

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai.

¶12

2.Kannan

¶13

3.Saravanan .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to register the petitioners' names as cultivating tenants in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act for the land in S.F.No.171/7A, 7B and 7C in Meenakshipuram Bit Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District on basis of the representation, dated 20.08.2024 within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶15

_________Page 1 of 5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Seeking an earlier consideration of the petitioners' representation,

¶21

dated 20.08.2024 requesting to register the petitioners as cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶22

The petitioners would submit that their grand father, namely Adaikkan had been cultivating the land which he had taken on lease and which is comprised in Survey No.171/7A, 7B and 7C measuring 0.61.00 ares at Meenakshipuram Bit Village, Madurai East Taluk from one Krishnammal and he had been cultivating it since 1960 along with the petitioners' father Kattaiyan. The lease stipulated that 2/3 of the crop yield had to go to Krishnammal and 1/3 to the petitioners' grand father. After the demise of the grand father, the petitioners' father has taken over it and continued cultivation. Since the cost of necessities for cultivation had increased, the petitioners' father and the said Krishnammal's son had

¶23

_________Page 2 of 5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

¶26

orally agreed to adjust the yield share as 2/3 for the cultivator and 1/3 for the land owner. As both the petitioners' grand father and father were illiterate, they had not know that the lease should be registered.

¶27

On 07.07.2005, the petitioners' father had passed away and the 2^nd petitioner continued cultivation. The said Krishnammal's legal heirs had also recognized the oral agreement of lease and had been receiving the yield as agreed. While so, the petitioner came to learn that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein who are the sons of Durairaj were attempting to sell the land without informing the petitioners. Immediately, the petitioners had sent a representation to the respondents on 20.08.2024 to register them as cultivating tenants. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶28

Heard the learned counsels on either side.

¶29

Considering the fact that the petitioners and prior to them, their

¶30

father and grand father have been cultivating the land since 1970 and

¶31

_________Page 3 of 5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

¶34

have been sharing the produce with the land owner, a mandamus is issued to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation, dated 20.08.2024 and pass orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶35

With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No

¶36

costs.

¶37

24.09.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gbg

¶39

¶40

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai.

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

¶44

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶45

gbg

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.22634 of 2024

¶47

24.09.2024

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

_________Page 5 of 5

K.Sekar v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sekar v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalaiarasi Vs The District Collector

Selvaraj Vs The Special Tahsildar

Tamimul Ansari Vs K.Senthilkumar

V.Parvathy, W/O.Viswanathan Vs the District Collector

K.Karuppaiah Vs The Tahsildar

Ramasamy Vs The Tahsildar