Disposed¶32

B. Sridhar v. Director of Land Reforms

Madras HC1 Apr 2025WP/252/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No.252 of 2022, Madras High Court, decided 01.04.2025 by N. Anand Venkatesh, J. Keywords: Article 226; writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Ayyan patta granted and later cancelled; land allotment; Erode District; Perundhurai Taluk; Director of Land Reforms; District Revenue Officer (Land Tribunal); Revenue Divisional Officer; Tahsildar; Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms; fresh representation direction; decision on merits within eight weeks; disposed; no costs; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent (District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal) with all relevant documents; the 2nd respondent to pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt; no costs. ¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings/orders of the 3rd respondent dated 16.12.2016 and the 4th respondent dated 25.5.2017 are liable to be quashed by writ of Certiorarified Mandamus. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

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

¶28

Ratio / Principle

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

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by B. Sridhar challenging the order dated 16.12.2016 in Na. Ka. 6488 / 2015 / A4 of the 3rd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode) and the consequential order dated 25.5.2017 in Na. Ka. 15500 / 2015 / A1 of the 4th respondent (Tahsildar, Perundhurai Taluk), and seeking a direction to consider his claim to allotment of land in place of the 6th respondent based on the order dated 28.12.2013 of the 2nd respondent. Noting that the Ayyan patta granted to the 6th respondent pursuant to the impugned orders had already been cancelled, and that only the petitioner's request for allotment survived, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the 2nd respondent (District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal, Erode) along with all relevant documents, and directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶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.252 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 Erode District.

¶16

The Tahsildar Perundhurai Taluk Erode District.

¶17

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

¶18

6.Natarasu .. Respondents

¶19

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.

¶20

1 / 4

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sai Shankar

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

2 / 4

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

01.04.2025

¶34

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶35