Balakrishnan @ Ramasubramani Vs Malarthangam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Balakrishnan @ Ramasubramani Vs Malarthangam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of with modification of the Single Judge's direction: action to be initiated by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE on receipt of the Sivagangai Samasthanam's representation, forwarded via the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai, and taken on the Joint Commissioner's subjective satisfaction per the procedure under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP(MD) No.9799 of 2026) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction of the learned Single Judge requiring respondent No.7 (Tahsildhar) to consider the writ petitioner's representations and take appropriate action was sustainable, given the appellants' pending civil suit and the contention that no direction could issue against the Sivagangai Samasthanam and that the competent authority under the HR&CE Act is only the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE at Madurai.

Court's answer

The Division Bench modified the learned Single Judge's direction: necessary action is to be initiated by the Joint Commissioner upon receipt of the representation by the Sivagangai Samasthanam, which is to be forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai.

Ratio / Principle

Thereafter, on subjective satisfaction, the Joint Commissioner is to take appropriate action in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ appeal (WA(MD) No.1095 of 2026, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, C.V.Karthikeyan & R.Sakthivel JJ, 29.07.2026) by respondents 9 and 10 of W.P.(MD) No.19605 of 2025 against the Single Judge's order dated 23.07.2025 directing the Tahsildhar (respondent No.7) to consider the writ petitioner's representations and take action under Section 79 of the HR&CE Act, 1959 concerning 2.48 acres in S.No.131/3, Samayanallur Village, leased for Annabhishegam Kattalai to the writ petitioner by Sivagangai Samasthanam proceedings dated 28.10.2024 (Na.Ka.No.D4 1915/2024). Appellants claimed rights under a purported Cowle deed dated 03.02.1923, stated to have been nullified by proceedings dated 06.12.1969 after Act 30 of 1963; a civil suit was pending. Holding: the Division Bench modified the direction — the Sivagangai Samasthanam's representation is to be forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai, and on subjective satisfaction the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, is to take appropriate action in accordance with the procedure under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act. Appeal disposed of; no costs; connected MP closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 23.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.19605 of 2025 directing respondent No.7 (Tahsildhar) to consider the writ petitioner's representations and take appropriate action after due notice to the private respondents, the exercise to be initiated within six weeks.¶33
Learned Single Judge, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) · 23.07.2025
Prior proceeding
The present appellants were respondents 9 and 10 in WP(MD) No.19605 of 2025 and filed this writ appeal against the Single Judge's order.¶33
Prior proceeding
First respondent (original writ petitioner) had filed WP(MD) No.19605 of 2025 seeking a mandamus against the District Collector, Madurai and the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, Madurai to take appropriate action under Section 79 of the HR&CE Act, 1959 in respect of land in S.No. 131/3 measuring 2.48 acres at Samayanallur Village, Madurai South Taluk, as against the present appellants.¶37
Prior proceeding
The said land had been leased out for Annabhishegam Kattalai to the writ petitioner by proceedings of the Sivagangai Samasthanam dated 28.10.2024 in Na.Ka.No.D4 1915/2024.¶37
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioner claimed he was cultivating the lands and in occupation, and objected that the present writ appellants were interfering with his possession.¶37
Prior proceeding
According to the writ petitioner, respondent Nos.9 and 10 (present appellants) encroached upon the property based on a purported Cowle deed dated 03.02.1923, which allegedly granted permanent occupation/permanent tenancy to their predecessor.¶38
Prior proceeding
It was submitted that subsequent to the enactment of Act 30 of 1963, the said Cowle deed was nullified by proceedings dated 06.12.1969.¶43
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioner's representations dated 26.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 were pending consideration by the seventh respondent.¶43
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge directed respondent No.7 to consider the petitioner's representation and take appropriate action after due notice to the private respondents in accordance with law, the exercise to be initiated within six weeks.¶44
Prior proceeding
Before the Division Bench, writ appellants' counsel raised a grievance that the appellants have a pending civil suit, that no direction could be issued against the Sivagangai Samasthanam, and that the competent authority is only the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE at Madurai.¶45