Partly allowed¶51

S. Ramachandran v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Jun 2026CMP/12059/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay 139 days; restoration petition; writ appeal dismissed for default 30.10.2025; writ appeal dismissed as withdrawn; patta cancellation; Inam Abolition Act; District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram proceedings 04.05.2012; Commissioner of Land Administration revision; liberty 30 days; W.P.No.25863 of 2014; WA No. 3277 of 2023; CMP No. 12059 of 2026; lack of jurisdiction challenge not sustainable; Madras High Court Division Bench

What did the court decide?

Delay of 139 days in filing the restoration petition condoned (CMP No. 12059 of 2026 allowed); writ appeal WA No. 3277 of 2023 dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to the petitioners to file a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order ¶51

S. Ramachandran Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 139 days in filing the restoration petition in the writ appeal should be condoned +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

CMP.No.12059/2026 seeking condonation of the 139 days delay in filing the restoration petition is allowed

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The writ appeal in WA.No.3277/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn, on the learned counsel's leave sought at the hearing

¶56

Key takeaways

Liberty given to the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Land Administration by way of a revision petition within thirty days [30 days] from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, working out their remedy as permitted by the learned Single Judgeratio¶57
The Court found that the challenge to the District Revenue Officer's impugned order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is not sustainable (stated at the hearing before the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn)obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench: Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala, JJ.) - CMP No. 12059 of 2026 in WA No. 3277 of 2023: The writ appeal, directed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 24-08-2022 in W.P.No.25863 of 2014 (which had upheld the District Revenue Officer's proceedings dated 04.05.2012 cancelling the petitioners' patta granted under the Inam Abolition Act for want of document of possession or proof of agricultural activity, and granted liberty to seek revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration), had been dismissed for default on 30.10.2025. The Court allowed the CMP condoning the 139 days delay in filing the restoration petition. On hearing merits, the Court found the challenge to the DRO's order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction not sustainable, whereupon counsel sought leave to withdraw. The writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to file a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶8

CMP No. 12059 of 2026 AND WA NO. 3277 OF 2023

¶9

S. Ramachandran S/o.Sarangapani, Eachankaranai Post Chengalpet Tk, Kanchipuram Dist.

¶10

S.Arumugam S/o.Sarangapani, Eachankaranai Post Chengalpet Tk, Kanchipuram Dist.

¶11

..Appellant(s)

¶12

¶13

The District Collector Kanchipuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶14

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶15

The Tahsildar Chengalpet Tk., Chengalpet, Kancheepuram Dist.

¶16

The Vice-President Village Panchayat, Kunnavakkam Village, Chengalpet Tk., Kancheepuram Dist.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 7

¶18

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

¶19

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶20

¶21

WA No. 3277 of 2023

¶22

1. S. Ramachandran
S/o.Sarangapani, Eachankaranai Post,
Chengalpet Tk, Kanchipuram Dist.
2. S. Arumugam
S/o.Sarangapani, Eachankaranai Post,
Chengalpet Tk, Kanchipuram Dist.

¶23

..Respondent(s)

¶24

..Appellant(s)

¶25

¶26

1. The District Collector Kanchipuram Dist, Kanchipuram.

¶27

1. The District Revenue Officer Kanchipuram Dist, Kanchipuram.

¶28

1. The Tahsildar Chengalpet Tk, Chengalpet, Kanchipuram Dist.

¶29

1. The Vice-President Village Panchayat, Kunnavakkam Village, Chengalpet Tk, Kanchipuram Dist.

¶30

..Respondent(s)

¶31

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶32

To condone the delay of 139 days in filing restorate petition in

¶33

WA.

¶34

WA No. 3277 of 2023

¶35

To allow the above W.A by setting aside the order dated 24-082022 passe in W.P.No.25863 of 2014.

¶36

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶37

For Appellant(s): MR.R.Abdul Mubeen For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surendar, Ga For R1 To R3

¶38

Page2 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶41

Order

¶42

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶43

(1) The petitioners herein, aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent herein, namely, the District Revenue Officer, dated 04.05.2012, wherein, the patta granted to the petitioners, was cancelled subsequently on being found that the patta in respect of the land under the Inam Abolition Act, was granted by the officer without any document of possession or proof of carrying on agricultural activity.

¶44

(2) The learned Single Judge, considering the contentions of the petitioners herein, found that there was no error in exercise of power by the authority who had passed the impugned order and if at all, the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order, they can avail the right of revision available before the Commissioner of Land Administration. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the writ petitioners to file appropriate revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, if so advised and if any revision is filed, the authorities to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.

¶45

(3) Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners had preferred an intra Court Appeal in WA.No.3277/2023.

¶46

Page3 of 7

¶47

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

¶48

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶49

Earlier, when the matter was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners. Hence, the writ appeal was dismissed for default on 30.10.2025. The appellants / writ petitioners had taken out an application to restore the writ appeal, with a delay of 139 days. When the application for condonation of delay came up for consideration on an earlier occasion, this Court, on perusing the affidavit, found that no acceptable reason available to condone the delay. However, to afford an opportunity to the petitioners/appellants, permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to make his submissions on merit.

¶50

(4) Accordingly, today the learned counsel for the petitioners made his submissions. However, this Court found that the challenge to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, is not sustainable. At that juncture, the learned counsel sought leave of this Court to withdraw the writ appeal and to extend the time for the petitioners to prefer the revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, to work out their remedy, as permitted by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

(5) Considering the plea, we dispose of CMP.No.12059/2026 and WA.No.3277/2026, filed to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the restoration petition, in the following terms:-

¶52

(a)CMP.No.12059/2026 is allowed.

¶53

__________ Page4 of 7

¶54

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

¶55

CMP No. 12059 of 2026

¶56