Dismissed¶68

Karthikeyan v. the Secretary

Madras HC4 Mar 2026WP/34379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature writ petition dismissed — mandamus for patta under Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Rules 2007 refused pending statutory appeal; appeal pending before Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee against reduced patta extents (3.29 and 2.36 acres against claimed 10 and 6 acres); Vaazthombaai (Mandaparai), Verapannur Village Panchayat, Jamuna Marathur Taluk, Jawadhu Hills, Thiruvannamalai; Article 226 Constitution of India; dismissed with liberty to challenge appeal order; no costs; tribal forest rights patta extent dispute.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the appeal order of the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee, if adverse, in the manner known to law. No costs. ¶68

Karthikeyan Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the appeal order of the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee, if adverse, in the manner known to law. No costs.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, stated to belong to a Tribal Community, are entitled to patta for the entire extents claimed (10 acres and 6 acres) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, having been granted patta only for 3.29 acres and 2.36 acres. +1 more

¶58

Ratio / Principle

Filing the writ petitions while the appeal before the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee is pending is premature; if aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, the petitioners may challenge it in the manner known to law.

¶64

Key takeaways

Both writ petitions stand dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the appeal order in the manner known to law if it is against them; no costs.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, Krishnan Ramasamy J., order dated 04-03-2026): Two petitioners described as father and son belonging to a Tribal Community sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai (2nd respondent) to issue patta in their names under Forest Right Nos. 234 & 235 for the full claimed extents of 10 acres and 6 acres at Vaazthombaai (Mandaparai), Verapannur Village Panchayat, Jamuna Marathur Taluk, Jawad Hills, invoking the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and the Rules of 2007. Patta had already been granted for reduced extents of 3.29 acres and 2.36 acres, and appeals against the extent allotted were pending before the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee. Held: instituting the writ petitions without awaiting the outcome of the pending appeals was premature; the writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to challenge the committee's appeal order in the manner known to law if adverse. No costs.

¶1

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

Karthikeyan

..Petitioner(s)

The Secretary, Adi Dravidar And Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

The District Forest Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶14

The District Forest Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶15

The District of Tribal Welfare, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶16

The Chief Forest Conservator, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet Chennai 600 015.

¶17

The Project Officer, Tribal Welfare Office District Collector’s Office Campus,

¶18

__________ Page1 of 8

¶19

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

¶20

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

¶21

Thiruvannamalai.

¶22

The Tahsildar, Jamuna Marathur Jawadhu Hills, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶23

10.The Special Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶24

11.The Forest Ranger, Nedanur Jawadhu Hills, Jamanu Marathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶25

..Respondent(s)

¶26

WP No. 34383 of 2023

Duraisamy

..Petitioner(s)

The Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶31

The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai Collector Office, Thiruvannamalai.

¶32

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶33

The District Forest Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶34

The District Forest Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶35

6. The District of Tribal Welfare,

¶36

__________ Page2 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

¶39

Ezhilagam,

¶40

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶41

The Chief Forest Conservator, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

¶42

The Project Officer, Tribal Welfare Office District Collector’s Office Campus, Thiruvannamalai.

¶43

The Tahsildar, Jamuna Marathur Jawadhu Hills, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶44

10.The Special Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Polur, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶45

11.The Forest Ranger, Nedanur Jawadhu Hills, Jamanu Marathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶46

..Respondent(s)

¶47

Prayer in W.P.No.34379 of 2023: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner name as per the Forest Right No.234 for an extent of 6 Acres situated at Vaazthombaai (Mandaparai) Verapannur Village Panchayat, Jamuna Marathur Taluk Jawad Hills, Thiruvannamala District.

¶48

Prayer in W.P.No.34383 of 2023: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner name as per the Forest Right No235 for an extent of 10 Acres situated at Vaazthombaai (Mandaparai)

¶49

Page3 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

¶52

Verapannur Village Panchayat, Jamuna Marathur Taluk Jawad Hills, thiruvannamala District.

¶53

In both W.Ps.,

¶54

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.Mariappan For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.Gowthamaraj, GA

¶55

COMMON ORDER

¶56

These writ petitions are filed to direct the second respondent to issue patta

¶57

in favour of the petitioners as per the Forest Right Nos.234 & 235 for an extent of 10 & 6 acres respectively, situated at Vaazthombaai (Mandaparai) Verapannur Village Panchayat, Jamuna Marathur Taluk Jawad Hills, thiruvannamala District.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are father and son, belongs to Tribal Community. As per Act of Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional forest dwellers recognition of Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Rules 2007, the petitioners are entitled for patta. Accordingly, the respondents identified and granted patta to the petitioners for an extent of 3.29 acres and 2.36 acres respectively. Aggrieved over the extent allotted, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee. Pending the same, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions, seeking patta for the entire extent of 10 acres and 6 acres respectively.

¶59

Page4 of 8

¶60

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

¶61

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

¶62

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that in the present case, an appeal is pending before the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee. Without the out come of the said appeal, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of these writ petitions.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶64

In the case on hand, initially, the petitioners have filed an application to grant patta for their lands to an extent of 10 acres and 6 acres respectively. After due consideration, the respondents have allotted 3.29 acres and 2.36 acres to the petitioners respectively. Challenging the said extent, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Level Forest Committee and the same is pending. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, without the outcome of the said appeal, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. In the event, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal before the committee, they can very well challenge the same in the manner known to the law. Therefore, this Court feels that filing these writ petitions in this stage is pre-mature.

¶65

__________ Page5 of 8

¶66

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

¶67

WP Nos. 34379 & 34383 of 2023

¶68

In the result, these writ petitions stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the appeal order in the manner know to

¶69

law, if it is against them. No costs.

¶70

04-03-2026

¶71

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶72

¶73

To:

¶74