State of Tamilnadu rep. by v. Peramanathan

Madras HC20 Feb 2026CMP(MD)/20100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; setting aside abatement; impleading legal representatives of deceased respondents; second appeal SA.(MD).No.326/2007; land acquisition matter — State of Tamil Nadu, Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Pattukottai, Thanjavur; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; N.Mala, J.; CMP.(MD) 2025; delay neither willful nor wanton; final hearing posted to 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1285 days and 2651 days in filing the petitions condoned; abatement in SA.(MD).No.326/2007 set aside; proposed respondents 3 to 8 impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased respondents 1 and 2; Registry to carry out necessary amendments; Second Appeal posted for final hearing on 10.03.2026. ¶¶20

State of Tamilnadu rep. by Vs Peramanathan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the delays of 1285 days and 2651 days in filing the petitions to set aside the abatement caused by the deaths of respondents 1 and 2 in SA.(MD).No.326/2007 should be condoned. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

The Court found the delay in filing the condonation petitions to be neither willful nor wanton.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the relationship of the parties and the facts were not in dispute, the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were ordered: delay condoned, abatement set aside, and the proposed respondents 3 to 8 impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased respondents 1 and 2.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Registry was directed to carry out necessary amendments wherever necessary in SA.(MD).No.326/2007 and to post the Second Appeal for final hearing on 10.03.2026.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), N.MALA, J. — Common order dated 20.02.2026 allowing CMP.Nos.20100, 20101 & 20103/2025 and 20149, 20150 & 20151/2025 in SA.(MD).No.326/2007, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu (represented by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District) to condone delay of 1285 days and 2651 days in filing petitions to set aside abatement caused by the deaths of respondents 1 and 2, to set aside the abatement, and to bring on record proposed respondents 3 to 8 as their legal representatives. The Court, having regard to the averments in the supporting affidavits, was satisfied the delay was neither willful nor wanton; since the relationship of the parties and the facts were not in dispute, the petitions were ordered. Registry directed to carry out necessary amendments and to post the Second Appeal for final hearing on 10.03.2026.

¶1

CMP.(MD).Nos.20100/2025 etc

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 20.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

CMP.Nos.20100, 20101, 20103/2025 and

¶7

CMP.Nos.20149, 20150 & 20151/2025 in SA.(MD).No.326/2007

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Department Pattukottai Thanjavur District. . . Petitioner in all the petitions

¶9

	Versus
1.Peramanathan
2.C.Thamiayyan	.. RR1&2 in SA..(MD).No.326/2007
3.Maragathavalli	.. Proposed R3 / LR of the deceased R1
4.Vijayalakshmi
5.Bhuvaneswari
6.Sathyan
7.Jothi
8.Singaravelan	.. Proposed RR4 to 8 / LRs of the deceased 2 nd respondent

¶10

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

¶11

CMP.(MD).Nos.20100/2025 etc

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.F.Deepak, AGP For RR 3 to 8 : Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

(1)These petitions are filed to condone the delay of 1285 days and 2651 days in filing the petitions to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1^st respondent and the 2^nd respondent in the appeal ; to set aside abatement and to bring on record, the proposed respondents 3 to 8 as the legal representatives of the deceased respondents 1 and 2, in the above appeal in SA.(MD).No.326/2007.

¶15

(2)The petitioner in the affidavits filed in support of the condone delay petitions, averred that since he had no knowledge of the Court proceedings, there was delay in filing the petition to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 1^st respondent. The petitioner further states that the 1^st respondent is residing in Soorapallam, while the petitioner is working in Pudukottai District and hence, there was a communication gap between the parties. The petitioner states that the delay was neither willful nor wantan, but due to the above bona fide reasons and hence, prayed for condonation of delay of 1685 days and 2651 days respectively.

¶16

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

¶17

CMP.(MD).Nos.20100/2025 etc

¶18

(3)Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, this Court is satisfied that the delay is

¶19