Muthu Mayilswami Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.01.2024 and to pass appropriate orders to reclassify the land in Survey No.341/1 (Local Fund Road) in M.Kalipatti Village, Mettur Taluk of Salem District into Village Natham Land for the purpose of granting house site pattas to the petitioner and other displaced persons.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, Government Advocate

¶26

ORDER

¶27

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ,]

¶28

Captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) pertains to a representation dated 05.01.2024 made by the writ petitioner seeking re-classification of lands qua Survey No.341/1 in M.Kalipatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District and a scanned reproduction of this representation is as follows:

¶29

Page Nos.2/23

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶32

Page Nos.3/23

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶35

The above representation dated 05.01.2024 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said representation'.

¶36

Page Nos.4/23

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶39

Mr.P.Jagadeean, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner draws our attention to proceedings of R3 [District Collector, Salem] dated 10.05.2024 and submits that the said representation is under active consideration. This 10.05.2024 proceedings of R3 bears reference Na.Ka.791417/2023/K2 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶40

Be that as it may, the writ petitioner has filed statutory

¶41

revision under Section 10A of 'The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act,

¶42

Page Nos.5/23

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶45

1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}' qua land comprised in aforesaid Survey No.341/1, the statutory revision is dated 10.11.2023 and a scanned reproduction

¶46

of the said revision and stay petition thereat are as follows:

¶47

Page Nos.6/23

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶50

Page Nos.7/23

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶53

Page Nos.8/23

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶56

Page Nos.9/23

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶59

Page Nos.10/23

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶62

Page Nos.11/23

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶65

Page Nos.12/23

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶68

Page Nos.13/23

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶71

Page Nos.14/23

¶72

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

¶73

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶74

Page Nos.15/23

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶77

Page Nos.16/23

¶78

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

¶79

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶80

Page Nos.17/23

¶81

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

¶82

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶83

Page Nos.18/23

¶84

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

¶85

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶86

Page Nos.19/23

¶87

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

¶88

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶89

Aforementioned 'statutory revision' shall be referred to as 'said revision' and said revision is pending with R1.

¶90

4. Issue notice.

¶91

Page Nos.20/23

¶92

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

¶93

W.P.No.6444 of 2025

¶94

Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate accepts

¶95

notice for all five respondents and submits that said revision and said representation are under active consideration of State.

¶96

Owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we

¶97

are of the considered view that it would be appropriate if R1 decides said revision as well as said representation. It is open to R1 to decide said revision by requisitioning a report from R3. We make it clear that said representation pertains to re-classification and therefore, we are not expressing any opinion or view on re-classification much less entitlement of the writ petitioner as learned State counsel submits that writ petitioner does not fall under the landless category and he has other lands. We express no opinion on this submission either and we leave open all questions.

¶98