Allowed

The Appellate Authority and Sub Collector v. a Antony Joseph

Madras HC27 Jun 2025WA(MD)/1711/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside the order directing resurvey of land in Survey No.178/2 because the appellants admit uploading a wrong FMB sketch. The Revenue Divisional Officer must not consider the impugned order during enquiry, and the appeal was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The order directing resurvey is set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall not take note of the impugned order during enquiry.

The Appellate Authority and Sub Collector Vs a Antony Joseph — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.9538 of 2025

¶7

1.The Appellate authority and Sub – Collector, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

2.The Tahsildar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.A.Antony Joseph ... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner 2.Jem.Jem Shakila 3.Nambirajan ... Respondents 2 & 3 / Respondents 3 & 4

¶11

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order made in W.P(MD)No.16089 of 2024 and allow this writ appeal.

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam for R.1

¶17

Mr.J.Barathan for R.3

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J. )

¶20

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.09.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.16089 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein. The writ petition was taken up along with the another writ petition filed by the first respondent herein and disposed of. Paragraph no.5 of the order dated 20.09.2024 reads as follows:

¶21

“5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the FMB sketch, which would show that the patta has been granted with reference to S.No.178/2, which is shown in the eastern extreme of S.No.178 stretching from north to south, whereas the documents of title would show that it is the entire northern extreme. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. The land in S.No.178 shall be surveyed and measured in tune with the documents of title that both the owners viz., the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent would produce. The Tahsildar shall issue notice informing the parties about

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025

¶25

the date of inspection and on receipt of the same, the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent shall be present with their documents of title and based upon the above documents, survey shall be conducted, property is measured and demarcated with boundaries and consequently, patta and FMB sketch shall be issued to the petitioner. The entire process shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶26

2.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the case on hand pertains to Survey No.178/2, Therku Kallikulam Village. It is stated that a wrong FMB was uploaded in the portal and that led to all the subsequent consequences. It is now stated that the appellants are ready to take down the erroneous FMB and replace the same with the earlier FMB which was prepared during UDR in the year 1983. Any aggrieved individual is at liberty to approach the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. If any such petition is filed, it shall be taken on file immediately and disposed of as per law within a period of four months thereafter. He also states that the order impugned in the writ petition will also be recalled.

¶27

3.Since the basis on which the present writ proceedings were instituted itself has been undermined, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The order impugned in the writ petition passed by the Revenue Divisional 3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025

¶30

Officer shall not be taken note of by the District Revenue Officer when he is

¶31

conducting enquiry.

¶32

4.This Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as

¶33

to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 27.06.2025 1/2

¶35

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025

¶39

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

¶40

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶41

MGA

¶42

W.A(MD)No.1711 of 2025

27.06.2025

1/2

5/5

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

The Appellate Authority and Sub Collector v. a Antony Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Appellate Authority and Sub Collector v. a Antony Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home department Vs G Chakkaravarthy

S.Saraswathi Vs The Joint Director of Elementary

The Commissioner Vs Manicka Pradeepa

V. Chinna Karuppan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd.

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs R Bhaskar