Karuppan, Vs The Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Karuppan, Vs The Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to both petitioners to prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District against the 4th respondent's order dated 10.10.2014, with the period pending before this Court excluded for the purpose of limitation; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, against the 4th respondent's order dated 10.10.2014 transferring patta, the petitioners should be granted liberty to pursue the effective appeal available before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District, instead of this Court adjudicating the writ petitions.

Court's answer

Without interfering with the respective impugned orders, this Court grants the petitioners liberty to prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District against the orders passed by the 4th respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The period pending before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation in computing the statutory appeal.

Key takeaways

With the above liberty, the writ petitions stand disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Dhandapani, J.), Common Order dated 03.09.2025 — W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016 (Karuppan and A.Pazhanal v. Secretary to Government (Revenue), Land Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms/P.A. to Collector (Land) Tirupur, Revenue Tahsildar Kangeyam Taluk, and private respondents R5–R11). Both writ petitions under Article 226 sought Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Tahsildar's order dated 10.10.2014 (Proceedings No.Na.Ka.3980/2014/Aa5) that transferred patta over Survey Nos. 38/A2, 39/A2, 38/B2, 39/B2, 39/C2 and 39/D of Pachapalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk (approx. 1.85 acres; Patta No.1969) to respondents 6 to 9, whose names the lands had been assigned to the petitioners' father/husband. Counsel submitted that an effective appeal exists before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District; accordingly, without interfering with the impugned orders, the Court disposed of the writ petitions granting liberty to appeal there, excluding the period pending before the High Court for limitation, with no costs and closure of the connected miscellaneous petitions.

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.09.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

and

W.M.P.Nos.5707, 5708, 5709 & 5710 of 2016 and 24746, 24747, 30165 &

37768 of 2017

1.Karuppan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6412 of 2016 2.A.Pazhanal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6413 of 2016

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Land Commissioner,

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms,

Erode.

Now the duties are exercised by The P.A. to the Collector (Land) Tirupur District, Collector Officer, Tirupur District.

4.The Revenue Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk, Thirupur District.

5.P.Ramesh

6.Nachiammal

7.Ramaal

8.Jayanthi

Page No.1 of 6

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

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

9.Perumal

10.Minor Priyadarshini

11.Minor Kaviyarasu [minor R10 & R11 are represented by their father and natural guardian Mr.Perumal] ... Respondents in both WPs

Prayer in W.P.No.6412 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the order dated 10.10.2014 Proceedings No.Na.Ka.3980/2014/Aa5 of the 4 th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 4 th respondent to cancel the Patta No.1969 and issue regular Patta in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.38/A2, 39/A2, 38/B2, 39/B2, 39/C2 and 39/D (Old Re-Survey No.475 and 476, present Re-Survey No.476/12) of Pachapalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Thirupur District to an extent of 1.85 acres in favour of the petitioner.

Prayer in W.P.No.6413 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the order dated 10.10.2014 Proceedings No.Na.Ka.3980/2014/Aa5 of the 4 th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 4 th respondent to cancel the Patta No.1969 and issue regular Patta in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.38/A2, 39/A2, 38/B2, 39/B2, 39/C2 and 39/D (Old Re-Survey No.475 and 476, present Re-Survey No.476/7 and 476/8) of Pachapalayam Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Thirupur District to an extent of 1.85 acres in favour of the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sundararajan (in both WPs)

Page No.2 of 6

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

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Rajangam (in both WPs) Government Advocate [R1 to R4] No appearance [R5] Mr.P.Saravanan [R6 to R11] *****

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same,

with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the 4 th respondent has passed the

impugned order dated 10.10.2014, ordering transfer of patta in favour of the respondents 6 to 9 in respect of the petition mentioned survey numbers, which was assigned in the names of the father of the petitioner in W.P.No.6412 of 2016 and the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.6413 of 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions before this Court.

3. Though very many grounds have been raised in these writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as against the order passed by the 4 th respondent, there is an effective appeal available before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District. Hence, he prays

Page No.3 of 6

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

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

that this Court may grant the above liberty to the petitioners.

5 . In view of the limited request sought for by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, this Court, without interfering with the respective impugned order, grants liberty to the petitioners to prefer appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur District and the period pending before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation.

6. With the above liberty, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

03.09.2025

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

Page No.4 of 6

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

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

To

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Land Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Erode.

Now the duties are exercised by The P.A. to the Collector (Land) Tirupur District, Collector Officer, Tirupur District.

4.The Revenue Tahsildar, Kangeyam Taluk, Thirupur District.

Page No.5 of 6

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

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

sp

W.P.Nos.6412 & 6413 of 2016

03.09.2025

Page No.6 of 6

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