Dismissed¶47

M.Kannan v. The Commission of Land Administration

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP/21401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches — writ petition under Article 226 — mandamus for resumption and restoration of assigned house site under Revenue Standing Order — assignment dated 19.08.1965 (Ref. B.69/95, 5 cents) subject to conditions — alienation by assignee-grandfather to sixth respondent in 1995-1996 — petitioner alleged sale void and sought restoration — representation dated 22.06.2019 filed after 35 years — writ petition, though no limitation applies, must be filed within reasonable time — WP No. 21401 of 2019 (connected WMP No.20606 of 2019), High Court of Judicature at Madras, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., decided 02-09-2025 — dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Though there is no limitation to file a writ petition, it should be filed within a reasonable time. ¶44

M.Kannan Vs The Commission of Land Administration — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 21401 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

WP No. 21401 of 2019 and WMP No.20606 of 2019

M.Kannan

Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Commission of Land Administration,

¶11

Rep by its Commissioner / Addl. Chief Secretary, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam Revenue Division, Cuddalore District.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar,

¶15

Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶16

5.The Sub Registrar, Mangalampattai, Virudhahalam, Cuddalore District.

¶17

6.Mr. K. Kathirvel, Son of Kandasamy Padaiyatchi, Pazhaiyapattinam Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 21401 of 2019

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to resume and restore possession under Revenue Standing Order in respect of their house site bearing Patta No. 31, comprised in New Survey No. 196/6 (Old S.No. 49/5 Part) at PazhayapattinamVillage, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District under Revenue Standing Order, Standing in the name of petitioner's grandfather (late) Mr. Srirangam son of Mr. Krishnan, after due notice, enquiry and hearing the petitioner as well as 6th respondent herein in accordance with law, pursuant to his representation dated 22.06.2019, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Veeramani

¶23

For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R1 to R4 Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader For R5

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The writ petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent to resume and

¶26

restore possession under Revenue Standing Order in respect of the house site bearing Patta No. 31, comprised in New Survey No. 196/6 (Old S.No. 49/5 Part)

¶27

at PazhayapattinamVillage, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District under

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 21401 of 2019

¶30

Revenue Standing Order, standing in the name of petitioner's grandfather after

¶31

due notice, enquiry and hearing the petitioner as well as sixth respondent herein

¶32

in accordance with law, pursuant to his representation dated 22.06.2019, within

¶33

a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶34

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional

¶35

Government Pleader for R1 to R4 and the learned Special Government Pleader for R5.

¶36

3.The petitioner's grandfather was originally assigned the subject property

¶37

on 19.08.1965 with reference No.B.69/95 to an extent of 5 cents subject to the

¶38

conditions mentioned in the patta and agreement entered into. However, the conditions were violated and the petitioner's grandfather sold the said land in favour of the sixth respondent in the year 1995-1996. After a period of 35 years, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 22.06.2019 alleging that his grandfather violated the condition and sold the subject property. Therefore,

¶39

the sale itself is void and the property to be restored in favour of the landless

¶40

Adi Dravidars.

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 21401 of 2019

¶43

4.The petitioner had submitted the representation after 35 years from the

¶44

date of the sale and has now filed a writ petition. That apart, though there is no

¶45

limitation to file a writ petition, it should be filed within a reasonable time. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the representation after a period of 35 years and filed the writ petition. Therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered after a period of 35 years and the writ petition is devoid of merits

¶46

and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

5.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶48

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is also closed.

¶49

02-09-2025

¶50

sli

¶51

Index:Yes/No