Disposed

Ramavtar Agarwal v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC10 Mar 2025WP(MD)/4701/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged reclassification of his Madurai lands as Panchami Tharisu without hearing. Court directed the first respondent to forward his representation to the State committee constituted under G.O.No.12 (04.03.2022), which must decide after hearing him within sixteen weeks; status quo on mutation to be maintained till then.

What did the court decide?

Representation to be forwarded to the committee for enquiry with opportunity of hearing and decision within sixteen weeks; status quo on mutation maintained till decision.

Ramavtar Agarwal Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.3388 of 2025

Ramavtar Agarwal

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Office of Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, 2^nd Floor, Chepauk,

¶11

Chennai-600005.

¶12

2.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai-625 020.

¶13

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate Campus, Madurai-625 020.

¶14

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Taluk, Madurai.

¶15

5.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Melur, Madurai District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to effect necessary amendments in all the revenue records such as Patta, Chitta, Village FMB, “A” Register and Adangal to show the petitioner's ownership for the properties pertaining to R.S.No.77/1 and R.S.No.79/2 in extent about 1 acre 78 cents and 21 cents respectively situated in Mukkampatti Village, Melur Taluk, Tamaraipatti Sub Registration District, Madurai District, on the basis of his representation dated 09.01.2025.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by the classification of his lands as 'Panchami Tharisu lands', without even providing an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the said reclassification.

¶25

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶29

3.The case of the petitioner is that the property was originally assigned to one Shanmugam even as early as in the year 1970 by the Special Tahsildar (Assignment) and Patta Passbook No.221009 was also issued to the said Shanmugam. The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and traces title to the said Shanmugam. The short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subject property is not panjamar lands and therefore, the reclassification was only erroneous. In any event, the said reclassification ought not to have been given effect to without giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶30

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would invite my attention to the committee formed by the State Government in G.O.No.12, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (LA2) Department, dated 04.03.2022. In pursuance of the order of this Court in CONT.P(MD)No. 1174 of 2020 in W.P(MD)No.12331 of 2017, a special committee comprising of the Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, being the chairman; Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department; Commissioner of Adi Dravidar Welfare; and Commissioner of Land Administration as its members, has been constituted. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the grievance of the petitioner can only be looked into by the committee.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶33

5.The petitioner has approached this Court after giving representation to the respondents. I find that the representation has been given to the Commissioner of Land Administration, who is a member of the committee constituted for the specific purpose.

¶34

6.In view of the above, the first respondent shall forward the said representation of the petitioner to the committee and it shall be taken up, enquired into, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a status-quo regarding the mutation as on date and it shall be maintained till a dinal decision is be taken by the committee.

¶35

7.With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

10.03.2025

¶37

sji NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes / No

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶41

Internet : Yes / No

¶42

¶43

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Office of Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, 2^nd Floor, Chepauk, Chennai-600005.

¶44

2.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai-625 020.

¶45

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate Campus, Madurai-625 020.

¶46

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Taluk, Madurai.

¶47

5.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Melur, Madurai District.

¶48

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

¶49

5/6

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶51

P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶52

sji

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.4701 of 2025

¶54

10.03.2025

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

Ramavtar Agarwal v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavtar Agarwal v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sree Latha

Murugaiah Pandian Vs Gunalan

The Managing Director Vs Murugesan

V.Ramasamy Vs The District Collector

Ayyam Pandi Vs The District Revenue Officer

R.K.Raja @ K.Raja Vs The District Collector