Dismissed¶36

Jayashankar v. The Chief Secretary to Government

Madras HC27 Feb 2026WA(MD)/235/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: reconveyance of acquired land; Adi Dravidar housing site; Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (Act 31 of 1978); Samuthuvapuram Scheme; Ramanathapuram District; Special Tahsildar; Na.Ka.No.2529/1986; Na.Ka.No.2/32636/2022; compensation deposited; 61 beneficiaries; allotment cancelled; new allottees; Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchnd Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183; W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2010 Panayamma; W.P(MD)No.22368 of 2025; Clause 15 Letters Patent Act; writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge order confirmed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the appellant; the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed and the Writ Petition dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. ¶36

Jayashankar Vs The Chief Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellant; the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed and the Writ Petition dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the land acquired for housing site for Adi Dravidars, alleged to have remained unused for decades, is liable to be re-conveyed to the erstwhile owner. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

In such circumstances (acquisition completed, compensation deposited, beneficiaries identified and allotted as early as 1990 with subsequent cancellation and new allottees in the picture), the prayer for reconveyance of the acquired land is not sustainable.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶36

Key takeaways

The order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, with no costs.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Division Bench: Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, author, and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan) dismissed W.A(MD)No.235 of 2026, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act by Jayashankar, erstwhile owner of land acquired for housing sites for Adi Dravidars in Ramanathapuram District, challenging the order dated 16.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.22368 of 2025. The Single Judge had recorded that the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (Act 31 of 1978) were duly concluded, the award issued, the entire compensation deposited, revenue records mutated in favour of the Government, and the land allotted to beneficiaries; relying on the Division Bench judgment in W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2010 (Government of Tamil Nadu v. Panayamma, dated 24.4.2015) that the Act provides no reconveyance, he disposed of the writ petition leaving the petitioner free to claim compensation in accordance with law. Before the Division Bench, the appellant's counsel urged reconveyance, invoking Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchnd Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 on the ground that the land lay unused and the Government had instead acquired 10 acres in the same village under the Samuthuvapuram Scheme; the Special Government Pleader responded that 61 beneficiaries were identified and allotted the land as early as 30.10.1990 (Na.Ka.No. 2529/1986), the allotment was later cancelled, and new beneficiaries had been identified with allotment orders issued (subject to verification). Holding the prayer for reconveyance unsustainable, the Bench confirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits, without costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 27.02 .2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

W.A(MD)No.235 of 2026

¶6

Jayashankar ... Appellant/Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

1.The Chief Secretary, Office of the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶9

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

3.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

4.The Special Tahsildar, Office of the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

5.The Special Tahsildar, Office of the Special Tahsildar,

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.22368 of 2025, dated 16.10..2025.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondents :Mr.S.P.Maharajan 1 to 5 Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN.,J )

¶20

The Writ Appeal is filed by the erstwhile owner of the land which was acquired for housing site for Adi Dravidars.

¶21

2.Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶22

3.The case of the appellant is that the land acquired for the housing site to Adi-Dravidars has been not put to use for several decades and therefore, the land has to be re-conveyed. However, when a request was made, the same was declined by the Department. Hence a Writ of Certiorari is filed to quash the

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

proceedings of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.2529/1986, dated 30.10.1990 and the order passed by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.2/32636/2022, dated 00.07.2022.

¶26

4.The learned Single Judge, after considering the prayer in the Writ Petition and the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, has placed on record that after completion of the acquisition proceedings, the entire compensation has been deposited and the land acquired has been allotted to the beneficiaries and therefore, there is no reason or provision for reconveyance of acquired land under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act(Act 31 of 1978).The learned Single Judge, taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, had passed the following order:

¶27

‘’3.Learned Government Advocate opposes the Petition by referring to the award and pointing out hat the revenue records have been mutated in favour of the Government. He also points out that the compensation amount has been deposited. In support of the contention that reconveyance is not permissible, learned Speial Government Pleader relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2010, the Government of Tamil Nadu and others .vs. Panayamma and others, judgment, dated 24.4.2015, wherein, it was held that there is no provision for reconveyance under Act 31 o 1978.

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

4.The record discloses that the acquisition proceedings were duly concluded and an award was issued. The RTI reply also reflects that the compensation amount was deposited. The Division Bench of this Court concluded that Act 31 of 1978 does not provide for reconveyance. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of by leaving it open to the Petitioner to claim compensation in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.’’

¶31

5.In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant states that till now the land is left unused and in fact, the Government had subsequently implemented Samuthuvapuram Scheme by acquiring 10 acres of land in the same village, which land also belongs to the appellant. Therefore, the purpose for which the land was acquired does not exist and in view of the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation .vs. Harakchnd Misirimal Solanki reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the land acquired for a particular purpose not been put into use for more than five years, has to be re-conveyed.

¶32

6.The leaned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that it is incorrect to state that the land acquired has not been put to use and by proceedings of the Special Tahsildar, 61 beneficiaries were identified and the acquired land was allotted to them as per proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 2529/1986, dated 30.10.1990. Thereafter, due to other reasons,

¶33

4/7

¶34

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

¶35

allotment was cancelled and the department is in the process of identifying new beneficiaries. In fact, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, on instructions, stated that new beneficiaries had already been identified and allotment order was also issued. This fact is subject to verification. In any event, since the process of acquisition completed and compensation deposited under the Special Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act does not provide for reconveyance. That apart, records also indicate that as early as in the year 1990, beneficiaries were identified and allotments were made and subsequently cancelled. Now he new allottees come into picture.

¶36

7.In such circumstances, the prayer for reconveyance is not sustainable. The learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, We confirm the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition, as devoid of merits. No costs.

¶37

[G.J.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.] 27.02.2026

¶38

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

vsn

¶40

5/7

¶41

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

¶42

¶43