Kamaraj Perumal Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Kamaraj Perumal Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the direction that the Revenue Divisional Officer proceed with the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.11503 of 2026) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents should be directed to take action to resume the agricultural lands in Sivagangai District (Survey Nos. 290 and 299, Thulavoor Village), assigned under the Free Land Assignment Scheme and allegedly converted to house plots and commercial/industrial use, by acting on the petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2026. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the Revenue Divisional Officer has already issued notices and initiated proceedings in the matter, it is appropriate that the RDO proceeds with the enquiry and passes appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Ratio / Principle

The present Public Interest Litigation is motivated and instituted for some other purpose than genuine public interest: although it is claimed the lands were assigned in 1999 and are only now being converted, the Encumbrance Certificate shows several transactions from 2003 onwards, all such earlier transactions have been omitted, and only the private respondents herein have been targeted for reasons best known to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Perusal of the assignment conditions indicates that the assignees are restrained from alienating the property only for a period of ten years from the date of assignment; the materials produced show the private respondents purchased the properties only in 2025, long after expiry of that period.ratio¶50
Therefore, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right seek a direction for resumption of the lands.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation disposed with enquiry direction - Kamaraj Perumal sought a mandamus (Article 226) directing officials to act on his representation dated 09.04.2026 and resume agricultural lands in Survey Nos. 290 and 299, Thulavoor Village, Thattatti Panchayat, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, assigned to landless villagers under the Free Land Assignment Scheme (referencing Govt.Letter No.36741/Ni.Mu.3-1/96-1 dated 15.07.1997) and allegedly converted into house plots and commercial/industrial use. An earlier identical PIL by the same counsel had been dismissed on 24.03.2026 as motivated, its filer having been an assignee-beneficiary who sold the property. The Court found the present PIL likewise motivated: transactions dating from 2003 appear in the Encumbrance Certificate yet were omitted, with only the private respondents targeted. Since the assignment conditions restrained alienation only for ten years from assignment, and the private respondents purchased only in 2025 - well after expiry - the petitioner could not seek resumption as a matter of right. Noting (via the Government Advocate) that the Revenue Divisional Officer had already issued notices and initiated proceedings, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the RDO to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties; no order as to costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)No.11503 of 2026 closed. Bench: N.Sathish Kumar, J. (order authored) and M.Jothiraman, J.; decided 09.06.2026.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the official respondents should be directed to take action to resume the agricultural lands in Sivagangai District (Survey Nos. 290 and 299, Thulavoor Village), assigned under the Free Land Assignment Scheme and allegedly converted to house plots and commercial/industrial use, by acting on the petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2026.¶40
The court held
Since the Revenue Divisional Officer has already issued notices and initiated proceedings in the matter, it is appropriate that the RDO proceeds with the enquiry and passes appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.ratio¶52
2.
Whether the present Public Interest Litigation is motivated and instituted for a purpose other than genuine public interest, given the earlier dismissal of an identical petition on 24.03.2026 and the omission of pre-existing transactions from the Encumbrance Certificate.¶46
The court held
The present Public Interest Litigation is motivated and instituted for some other purpose than genuine public interest: although it is claimed the lands were assigned in 1999 and are only now being converted, the Encumbrance Certificate shows several transactions from 2003 onwards, all such earlier transactions have been omitted, and only the private respondents herein have been targeted for reasons best known to the petitioner.ratio¶46
3.
Whether the private respondents' purchases of the assigned lands breach the assignment condition restraining alienation for ten years from the date of assignment, and whether resumption of the lands can accordingly be demanded as a matter of right.¶50
The court held
Perusal of the assignment conditions indicates that the assignees are restrained from alienating the property only for a period of ten years from the date of assignment; the materials produced show the private respondents purchased the properties only in 2025, long after expiry of that period.ratio¶50