Disposed

Indira Gandhi v. The Assistant Commissioner of land Reforms

Madras HC22 Jul 2025WP(MD)/19807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to revenue authorities to consider representation for cancellation of patta issued to private respondents and issuance of separate patta in the name of the petitioner's deceased mother-in-law's assignee land. Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the representation and pass final orders within twelve weeks after hearing both sides, without expres

What the court decided

AI extract

Indira Gandhi Vs The Assistant Commissioner of land Reforms — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19807 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.19807 of 2025

Indira Gandhi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Trichy.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Taluk, Musiri,

¶12

Trichy District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶14

The Village Administrative Officer, Seventhalingapuram Village, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶15

Venkatesh

¶16

Valarmathi ... Respondents

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.19807 of 2025

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.2 to 4, the Petitioner made one another Representation on 14.07.2025 and prayed to issue separate patta in the name of her grandmother Late. Chellammal, W/o. Angamuthu on the basis of the assignment order issued by the 1st Respondent in Proceedings No.MRIV/126H/58-61 dated 09.09.1998 in "Form - F" Under Rule 8 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965 based on her Representation dated 14.07.2025.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate For R5 and R6 : Mr.R.Mahendran

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2025 seeking issuance of separate patta in respect of the land assigned in favour of the petitioner's mother-in-law namely Chellammal, wife of Angamuthu by the order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 09.09.1998.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.19807 of 2025

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.S.Jeya

¶28

Priya, learned Government Advocate who takes notice for R1 to R4 and Mr.R.Mahendran, learned counsel who takes notice for R5.

¶29

By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for

¶30

final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶31

According to the petitioner, the subject property with an extent of 2.09 acres in S.No.126/1 was assigned in favour of the petitioner's motherin-law by an order dated 09.09.1998, by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Trichy. The petitioner's mother in law Chellammal died on 01.04.2010. The petitioner's husband Manohar died on 04.02.2012.

¶32

Now the subject property has been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. However the respondents issued patta for the subject property in the name of the respondents 5 and 6 who are the original Pannai Land owners of the subject property. Therefore, she submitted a representation on 14.07.2025, seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of the private respondents and issuance of separate patta in favour of

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.19807 of 2025

¶36

the petitioner based on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Trichy dated 09.09.1998. The said representation has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶37

The learned Government Advocate who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that if the petitioner is able to produce documents to show the entire consideration has been paid by original assignee as per the assignment order, the request of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶38

Mr.R.Mahendran, learned counsel who takes notice for the private respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the total extent of the land in S.No.126/1 is 8 acres 36 cents and the said property has not been taken over from the private respondents in the manner known to law under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,1961. Therefore, the private respondents are entitled to patta.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.19807 of 2025

¶42

In view of the rival contentions raised by the private respondents 5 and 6, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2025 and pass final orders on its own merits within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the private respondents 5 and 6.

¶43