Allowed¶51

S.Siraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Sept 2025WP/21867/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patta; Ryotwari patta; Estate Abolition Act (Act 26 of 1948); revenue records wrongly mutated in name of National Highways; Survey No.363/4A, Marudandapalli Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District; NH No.7 acquisition; Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; mechanical rejection of claim; remand for fresh consideration; detailed enquiry; fresh orders within twelve weeks; WP No. 21867 of 2019; Madras High Court; order dated 02-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.02.2019 in Pa.Mu.10490/2018/J2 set aside; petitioner's representation remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration with directions to conduct a detailed enquiry, obtain fresh reports from respondents 3 to 6 on whether the land was acquired by the National Highways, and pass fresh orders within twelve weeks; no costs.

S.Siraj Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.02.2019 of the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for issuance of patta for the land in Survey No.363/4A was liable to be set aside, having been passed mechanically on the fifth respondent's report without considering the fourth respondent's report. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The second respondent rejected the petitioner's claim solely on the report of the fifth respondent and without considering the report of the fourth respondent, i.e., mechanically.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the second respondent in Pa.Mu.10490/2018/J2, dated 08.02.2019, is set aside.

¶43

Key takeaways

The petitioner's representation is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration.ratio¶47
The second respondent is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry.ratio¶48
Respondents 3 to 6 are directed to submit a fresh report on whether the subject land was acquired by the National Highways.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 08.02.2019 of the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri (second respondent) in Pa.Mu.10490/2018/J2 rejecting the petitioner's request for patta in respect of 0.43.0 hectare in Survey No.363/4A, Marudandapalli Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The land originally formed part of S.No.363/4 (Patta No.422) for which Ryotwari patta was granted to the petitioner's grandfather by order dated 31.05.1958 in R.P.No.50/57 passed under the Estate Abolition Act (Act 26 of 1948); after subdivision, only S.No.363/4B was acquired by the National Highways Authority for NH No.7. The Special Tahsildar had reported on 23.02.2017 that S.No.363/4A was never acquired by the Government, yet the revenue records stood mutated in the name of National Highways. Holding that the second respondent had mechanically rejected the claim based only on the fifth respondent's (Divisional Engineer, National Highways) report without considering the fourth respondent's report, the Court set aside the order, remitted the representation for fresh consideration, directed a detailed enquiry with fresh reports from respondents 3 to 6 on whether the land was acquired by the National Highways, and required fresh orders within twelve weeks. No costs.

¶1

1/7

¶2

WP No. 21867 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 02-09-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶7

WP No. 21867 of 2019

¶8

S.Siraj

¶9

S/o. Sheik Ibrahim Saheb

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The District Collector, Krishnagiri District.

¶13

2.The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶14

3.The Competent Authority (L.A) N.H. Nos.7 and 46, The Special District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri.

¶15

4.The Special Tahsildar (L.A) N.H. No.7, Six Lane Roads, Unit-1, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶16

5.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶17

6.The Tahsildar, Shoolagiri Taluk Office, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

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

¶20

2/7

¶21

WP No. 21867 of 2019

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent issued in Pa.Mu.10490 /2018/ J2, dated 08.02.2019, quash the same

¶23

and consequently direct the respondents 1, 2 and 6 to issue Patta to the Petitioner in respect of land to an extent of 0.43.0 Hectare in Survey No. 363/4A situate at Marudandapalli Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

¶25

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The writ petition has been filed as against the order dated 08.02.2019 on

¶28

the file of the second respondent thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner for issuance of patta in respect of the land to an extent of 0.43.0 Hectare comprising in Survey No. 363/4A situated at Marudandapalli Village,

¶29

Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶30

2.The petitioner's grandfather owned lands measuring an extent of 5.26

¶31

acres comprised in Survey No. 363/4 covered by Patta No.422, situated at

¶32

Marudandapalli Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District. An enquiry was

¶33

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

¶34

3/7

¶35

WP No. 21867 of 2019

¶36

conducted under the provisions of Estate Abolition Act (Act 26 of 1948) for grant of Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner's grandfather by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Krishnagiri. After enquiry, by an order dated 31.05.1958, passed in R.P.No.50/57, patta was ordered to be issued for S.No.363/4. Subsequently, it was sub divided into 363/4A, 363/4B and 363/4C to an extent of 0.43.0 hectares, 0.45.5 hectares and 1.24.5 hectares respectively. The land in S.No.363/4B (0.45.5 hectares) was acquired by the National Highways Authority for the purpose of formation of NH No.7 road. The land comprised in S.No.363/4A and the land in S.No.363/4C were not acquired by the authority. However, the said land was used for installing stone crusher machine. That being so, the petitioner's grandfather died leaving behind the petitioner's father and two others as his surviving legal heirs to his estate. The land comprised in S.No.363/4A has been used by the National Highways for mixing black Tar with blue metal for formation of National Highways. Therefore, the petitioner could not utilise the said land and also to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the revenue records have been wrongly mutated in the name of National Highways. In an enquiry, the Special Tahsildar had served a report

¶37

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

¶38

4/7

¶39

WP No. 21867 of 2019

¶40

dated 23.02.2017, stating that the land comprised in Survey No.363/4A was not acquired by the Government for any purpose. However, it was wrongly mentioned in the revenue records that the land stands in the name of the

¶41

National Highways. Therefore, the petitioner had given a representation dated 11.05.2017 to the second respondent to change the revenue records accordingly. However, the second respondent on the strength of the report submitted by the fifth respondent rejected the petitioner's claim.

¶42

3.A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides reveal that only based on the report submitted by the fifth respondent, the second respondent had rejected the claim made by the petitioner, which shows that the second respondent without considering the report of the fourth respondent, mechanically rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶43

4.In view of the above, the order passed by the second respondent in Pa.Mu.10490/2018/J2, dated 08.02.2019, is set aside. The representation of the

¶44

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

¶45

5/7

¶46

WP No. 21867 of 2019

¶47

petitioner is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. It is

¶48

made clear that the second respondent is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry

¶49

and the respondents 3 to 6 are directed to submit their fresh report in respect of

¶50

the subject land as to whether it was acquired by the National Highways or not? On the strength of the report and original records, the second respondent is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

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

¶52

02-09-2025

¶53

sli

¶54

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶55

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

¶56

6/7