Dismissed¶26

Sanjay Gandhi, v. the District Collector

Land classification – Writ of Mandamus under Article 226

Madras HC15 Apr 2025WP(MD)/9908/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjay Gandhi v. District Collector, Madurai; W.P.(MD)No.9908 of 2017; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice P.B. Balaji; decided 15.04.2025; Panchamar / Panchamar Tharisu land classification; UDR 'A' register 1987; Thuvarankulam village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District; survey numbers 97/1, 97/2, 97/3, 97/4A; Article 226 mandamus; Committee under Principal Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department; writ petition dismissed with liberty to challenge classification proceedings; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under which the Panchamar Tharisu classification has been given effect; writ petition otherwise dismissed with no costs. ¶26

Sanjay Gandhi, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under which the Panchamar Tharisu classification has been given effect; writ petition otherwise dismissed with no costs.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can be restrained from effecting changes in the classification of the petitioner's lands in S.Nos. 97/1 (part) 1.01 acres, 97/3 (part) 0.53 acre, 97/4A (part) 0.36 acre and 97/2 (part) 0.10 acre, totalling 2 acres in Thuvarankulam village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, as Panchamar lands, and whether the classification as per the UDR 'A' register of the year 1987 must be adopted.

¶17

Court's answer

Finding force in the Government Advocate's submission, the court held that the respondents had admittedly already taken steps to reclassify the lands, which now stand converted as Panchamar Tharisu lands (classified as early as May 2012), and therefore the mandamus sought restraining change of classification / directing adoption of the 1987 UDR 'A' register classification cannot be granted.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the Panchamar Tharisu classification, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under which the classification has been given effect.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land classification - Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 - Petitioner owning 2 acres in S.Nos. 97/1 (part), 97/3 (part), 97/4A (part) and 97/2 (part), Thuvarankulam village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, sought restraint on classification of his lands as Panchamar lands and adoption of the UDR 'A' register classification of 1987. Held, dismissing the petition: the respondents had admittedly already reclassified the lands, which stand converted as Panchamar Tharisu lands (so classified as early as May 2012, per the Government Advocate, whose submission the court accepted); the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under which the classification was given effect. No costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9908 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9908 of 2017

¶7

Sanjay Gandhi

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur Division, Othakadai, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Melur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to effect any changes in the classification of lands in survey numbers 97/1 (part) to an extent of 1.01 acres, 97/3 (part) to an extent of 0.53 acre, 97/4A (part) to an extent of 0.36 acre, 97/2 (part) to an extent of 0.10 acre totalling 2 acres comprised in Thuvarankulam village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District as Panchamar lands and to adopt the classification as per the UDR “A” register of the year 1987.

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.9908 of 2017

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murugesan For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's lands are comprised in survey numbers.97/1 (part) to an extent of 1.01 acres, 97/3 (part) to an extent of 0.53 acre, 97/4A (part) to an extent of 0.36 acre, 97/2 (part) to an extent of 0.10 acre totalling 2 acres and attempts are being made to classify the said lands belonging to the petitioner as Panchamar lands. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to forbear the respondents from effecting any changes in the classification of lands affecting the petitioner's interest. According to the petitioner, the classification as per UDR 'A' register of the year 1987 has to be adopted by the respondents.

¶18

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶19

3. The learned Government Advocate would sumit that Committee has been formed consisting of Principal Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.9908 of 2017

¶23

Tribal Welfare Department as the Chairman and Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Commissioner of Adi Dravidar Welfare and Commissioner of Land Administration as the members of the Committee. He would further submit that the lands have already been classified as Panchamar Tharisu even as early as in May 2012 and therefore, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶24

4. I find force in the submission made by the learned Government

¶25

Advocate. Admittedly, the respondents have already taken steps to reclassify the lands and now the lands are converted as Panchamar Tharisu lands. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by such classification, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings, under which classification has been given effect.

¶26

5 . With the said liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶27

15.04.2025

¶28

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gbg

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.9908 of 2017