Disposed¶36

B.Sridhar v. Director of Land Reforms

Madras HC1 Apr 2025WP/245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land allotment dispute, Erode District; Ayyan patta granted to sixth respondent and later cancelled; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 against Revenue Divisional Officer order dated 16.12.2016 and Tahsildar order dated 25.5.2017; reliance on District Revenue Officer (Land Tribunal) order dated 28.12.2013; petition disposed with direction for fresh representation and consideration on merits within eight weeks; no costs; Madras High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation with all relevant documents before the 2nd respondent (District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal), who is to pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks; no costs. ¶36

B.Sridhar Vs Director of Land Reforms — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 16.12.2016 in Na. Ka. 6488/2015/A4 (3rd respondent) and 25.5.2017 in Na. Ka. 15500/2015/A1 (4th respondent) should be quashed. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Since the Ayyan patta granted to the 6th respondent pursuant to the impugned orders has been cancelled, the only surviving matter is the petitioner's pending request for allotment of land in his favour.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent along with all relevant documents, and the 2nd respondent shall pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of the representation.

¶35

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions, without costs; the merits of the impugned orders were not independently adjudicated.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), Writ Petition No.245 of 2022, decided 01.04.2025: The petitioner, invoking Article 226 and seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenged the orders dated 16.12.2016 (Na. Ka. 6488/2015/A4) of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the consequential order dated 25.5.2017 (Na. Ka. 15500/2015/A1) of the Tahsildar, and sought allotment of land in his place pursuant to the District Revenue Officer's order dated 28.12.2013. At hearing it emerged that the Ayyan patta granted to the 6th respondent under the impugned orders had itself been cancelled, leaving only the petitioner's allotment request outstanding. The court did not rule on the validity of the impugned orders; instead it disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent (District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal) with all relevant documents, and directing that officer to decide the request on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks. No costs were awarded.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.04.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Writ Petition No.245 of 2022

¶6

B.Sridhar …. Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

Director of Land Reforms

¶9

Ezhilagam, Chepaukkam

¶10

Chennai - 600 005.

¶11

District Revenue Officer

¶12

(Land Tribunal)

¶13

Erode District.

¶14

Revenue Divisional Officer

¶15

Office of the Revenue Divisional Office

¶16

Erode District.

¶17

The Tahsildar

¶18

Perundhurai Taluk

¶19

Erode District.

¶20

Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms

¶21

Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Erode District.

¶22

6.P.Janaki .. Respondents

¶23

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd and 4th respondents in pursuant to their orders dated 16.12.2016 in Na. Ka. 6488 / 2015 / A4 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequential order dated 25.5.2017 in Na. Ka.

¶24

1 / 4

¶25

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

¶26

15500 / 2015 / A1 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 5th respondent to consider and grant allotment of land in favour of the petitioner in the place of the 6th respondent in pursuant to the order dated 28.12.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sai Shankar

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents and for a consequential direction to the 5^th respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner seeking for allotment of land in his favour.

¶31

2.Heard Mr.S.Sai Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5.

¶32

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it was brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents dated 16.12.2016 and 25.05.2017, Ayyan patta was granted in favour of the 6^th respondent. Subsequently, the said Ayyan patta was also cancelled. In view of the same, what remains is only the request made by the petitioner seeking for the allotment of land in his favour.

¶33

2 / 4

¶34

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

¶35

4.In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the 2^nd respondent along with all the relevant documents. On receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent is directed to pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.

¶36

5.This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶37

01.04.2025

¶38

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶39