Dismissed¶12

V.Balasubramanian v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Jun 2026WP(MD)/16042/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal of NOC for agricultural-to-residential land conversion; 'Tharisu Land' classification; Adangal extract (no cultivation 3 years) contradicted by solam cultivation and crop insurance records; amended condition: land must be barren at least two years for conversion; Article 226 writ of certiorarified mandamus; DTCP approval sought; Thoothukudi / Vilathikulam Taluk / Kulakkattankurichi Village; petition dismissed with liberty to reapply after 2-year barren period.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with 'No costs' and liberty to reapply for the NOC after the requisite 2-year barren period, to be considered on its own merits; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶12

V.Balasubramanian Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned letter of the 3rd respondent dated 06.04.2026 refusing the NOC should be quashed as illegal and a NOC directed to be issued for using the petitioner's land in Sy. No.51/8, Kulakkattankurichi Village, for non-agricultural residential purpose, enabling DTCP approval. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

Since it is stated that the petitioner is not cultivating from 2025, once the petitioner crosses the requisite 2-year period of keeping the land barren, he can once again apply for the NOC, and the application will be considered on its own merits.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Factual finding: prior to the petitioner's 2025 purchase, the vendor (4th respondent) had been cultivating the land, as evidenced by the Adangal extract, and had also obtained crop insurance in respect of it.

¶10

Key takeaways

It cannot be held that the land remained barren for a continuous period of two years, in view of the vendor's prior cultivation and crop insurance; hence the challenge to the refusal of 'No Objection' fails.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HC (Madurai Bench) – W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026, decided 12.06.2026 (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) – Dismissed. Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Joint Director of Agriculture's Letter No.T3/2821/2026 dated 06.04.2026 refusing a NOC for converting the petitioner's land (Sy. No.51/8, 1 Acre 49 cents, Kulakkattankurichi Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District) to non-agricultural residential use and to enable DTCP approval. The amended conversion condition requires the land to be barren for at least two years. Although the petitioner relied on a 'Tharisu Land' classification and an Adangal extract showing no cultivation for three years, the vendor (4th respondent) had grown solam and taken crop insurance, evidencing cultivation; the court held the land could not be regarded as barren for a continuous two-year period. Petition dismissed with no costs; petitioner free to reapply once the two-year barren period from 2025 runs out, to be considered on its own merits. Connected W.M.P(MD)No.11989 of 2026 closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 12.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.11989 of 2026

V.Balasubramanian

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶12

The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning Authority, District Town and Country Planning Office (DTCP), Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi.

¶13

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Agricultural Office Complex, Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi.

¶14

V.R.Jeyaramasamy alias Jeyaraj ...Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned letter communication of the

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026

¶19

3rd respondent in letter No. T3/2821/2026 dated 06.04.2026 and quash the same as illegal and directing the 3rd respondent to issue a NOC (No Objection Certificate) to the petitioner for using the petitioner land in Sy. No.51/8 admeasuring 1 Acre 49 cents situate at Kulakkattankurichi Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District for non agricultural residential purpose and enable the 2nd respondent to consider and grant DTCP approval and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Babu For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

¶23

06.04.2026.

¶24

Heard Mr.S.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶25

and M/s.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar, learned Government Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026

¶29

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that in the process of conversion of agricultural lands into residential plots when the petitioner sought for 'No Objection' from the 3^rd respondent, the same was refused.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the property from the 4^th respondent in the year 2025. The property is already classified as “Tharisu Land” and the petitioner has also produced the Adangal extract which shows that no cultivation is being made for the past three years. In any event, the petitioner is not cultivating anything from the date of his purchase in the year 2025.

¶32

Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶33

would submit that when the property is already classified in the village records as “Tharisu Land”, the contrary conclusion cannot be arrived at by the respondents.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026

¶37

Per contra, learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner's vendor had grown solam in the land and had also obtained crop insurance. At the time of obtaining crop insurance, the village Adangal extract was also produced, which categorically mentions that solam was cultivated in the subject matter land.

¶38

Under these circumstances, action is proposed against the

¶39

particular individual who has now given the Adangal extract as if no cultivation was made.

¶40

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶41

As per the condition which is now amended in order to get 'No

¶42

Objection' for conversion, the land should be a barren land at least for a period of two years.

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026

¶46

The petitioner purchased the property only in the year 2025. Prior to the same, the petitioner's vendor namely the 4^th respondent herein had been cultivating the said land, as evidenced by the Adangal extract. He had also obtained crop insurance in respect of the same.

¶47

In view thereof, it cannot be held that the land remained barren for a continuous period of two years.

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, since it is stated that the petitioner is not cultivating from the year 2025, once the petitioner crosses the requisite 2 year period of keeping the land barren the petitioner can once again apply for the same which will be considered on its own merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

12.06.2026

¶50

Neutral Citation: No rgm

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

W.P(MD)No.16042 of 2026

¶54

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶55