M/S.Almco Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

M/S.Almco Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order of the 1st respondent / District Collector dated 21.10.2024 quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP.No. 43308 & 43309 of 2024) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Collector has power to cancel the assignment and resume the land when the assignment was made prior to 14.05.1973.

Ratio / Principle

Under RSO-15(2)(xi), where land was assigned prior to 14.05.1973, the authority competent to resume or re-enter the land is only the Commissioner of Land Administration (or the Government), and he alone can pass the resumption order; the Collector has no power to resume such land.

Key takeaways

The Collector's power under G.O.Ms.No.2555 extends only to passing a revisional order cancelling an assignment illegally made by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer; it does not confer power on the Collector to resume, for breach of conditions, land assigned prior to 14.05.1973.ratio¶42
Since the subject assignment was made on 01.09.1929 (prior to 14.05.1973), the impugned cancellation order passed by the District Collector, who has no power to resume such land, is not under the provisions of law and is liable to be quashed.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Assigned land - Resumption of assigned land - Resuming authority under RSO-15(2)(xi): (a) Tahsildar for non-valuable land; (b) Revenue Divisional Officer for valuable land; and (c) Commissioner of Land Administration/Government for lands assigned prior to 14.05.1973. Where the assignment dates back to 01.09.1929, i.e., prior to 14.05.1973, only the Commissioner of Land Administration is competent to resume the land for breach of assignment conditions; the District Collector has no such power. The Collector's power under G.O.Ms.No.2555 dated 14.05.1973 is confined to revisional cancellation of assignments illegally made by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer (RSO-15-18). Cancellation of the 1929 assignment effected by the District Collector, Coimbatore, by order dated 21.10.2024 in Na.Ka.No.23/2023/A2 lacking statutory competence, was quashed; writ petition under Article 226 allowed, no costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

WP No. 40016 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

WP No. 40016 of 2024 and

WMP.No. 43308 & 43309 of 2024

M/s.Almco Properties Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director Viz A. Ignatius Emerald Prabahar, Having Office at Flat No T-3, 3rd Floor, Bliss Homes, Plot Nos. 18 & 19, R.E. Nagar, 1^st Main Road, Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

District Registrar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore.

Tahsildar, Kinnathukadavu, Coimbatore.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.23 / 2023 / A2 dated 21.10.2024 and quash the same.

__________ Page1 of 6

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

WP No. 40016 of 2024

For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.R.Dhalapathy Vignesh Kumar, B. Archana, K. Lakshana For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Gauthamaraj Government Advocate

ORDER

Challenge was made against the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 21.10.2024, cancelling the assignment.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of the impugned order, the original assignment of the subject land made on 01.09.1929 was cancelled by the 1^st respondent / District Collector. According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent / District Collector has no authority to pass the present impugned order in terms of the provisions of RSO-15(2)(xi). By referring the said provision, he would submit that in the present case, since the land was assigned as early as on 01.09.1929, the competent authority to resume the land is only the Commissioner of Land Administration, who has been vested with powers to resume the land by cancelling the assignment, if there is any breach of terms and conditions of the assignment, which was made prior to 14.05.1973. Though very may grounds were raised by the petitioner in the present case, the learned counsel mainly argued on the aspect of the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent to pass the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent has no authority

Page2 of 6

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

WP No. 40016 of 2024

to pass the impugned order and, the authority concerned to pass the order cancelling the assignment is only the Commissioner of Land Administration in terms of RSO-15. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2555 dated 14.05.1973, the Collector has provided authority to resume the land therefore, in terms of the said Government order, the impugned order was passed by the 1^st respondent / District Collector.

In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as afar as the said G.O.Ms.No.2555 is concerned, it would apply only in the case of revision of the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer. If any assigned was made illegally by Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer, in such cases, the Collector has power to review the order and cancel the assignment made by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of RSO-15-18.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

Page3 of 6

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

WP No. 40016 of 2024

Now the issue is whether the Collector has power to cancel the

assignment and resume the land when the assignment was made prior to 14.05.1973. Before answering the said issue, it is relevant to extract the

RSO-15(2)(xi) wherein, the resuming authority defined as follows:

“ (xi) Resuming authority:- The authority competent to

resume or re-enter on lands for breach of any condition of assignment shall be as follows:-

(a) The Tahsildar, if the land is nonvaluable;

(b) The Revenue Divisional Officer if the land is valuable; and

(c) The Commissioner of Land Administration/ Government, for the lands assigned prior to 14.05.1973.”

From the reading of the above definition, it is clear that in the event if any land is assigned prior to 14.05.1973, the authority concerned to resume the land is only the Commissioner of Land Administration and the Collector has not been provided any power to resume the land. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.2555, the Collector has been given power only to pass a revisional order to cancel the assignment, if any, made by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer illegally. In the present case, the reason assigned by the Collector for cancellation of the subject assignment was that breach of terms and conditions. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of RSO-15(2)(xi), only the Commissioner

of Land Administration alone has power to resume the land, in the event if the

assignment was made on or before 14.05.1973.

__________ Page4 of 6

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

WP No. 40016 of 2024

In the present case, the assignment was made on 01.09.1929 therefore,

in terms of Sub-clause (xi) defining ‘Resuming Authority’, the Commissioner of Land Administration alone has power to resume the land and he can pass the order. However, the impugned order was passed by the Collector, who has no power to resume the land which was assigned prior to 14.05.1973. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent / District Collector is not under the provisions of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, quashing the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent / District Collector dated 21.10.2024. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28-04-2026

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

KKN

__________ Page5 of 6

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

WP No. 40016 of 2024

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

KKN

To

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

District Registrar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore.

Tahsildar, Kinnathukadavu, Coimbatore.

WP No. 40016 of 2024

28-04-2026

__________ Page6 of 6

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