Pechiammal R Vs The Commissioner of Land… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Pechiammal R Vs The Commissioner of Land… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the order impugned in the writ petition set aside; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P(MD)No.2350 of 2023) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned rejection order (Na.Ka.No.G4/47152/2021 dated 25.01.2023) and the subsequent eviction notice (Na.Ka.No.A2/2368/2021 dated 02.02.2023) should be quashed as illegal and arbitrary, and the respondents directed to approve the realignment of the Vandipathai/cart track running through the petitioner's patta land in Survey No.388/1. +1 more

Court's answer

Accordingly, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

On examination of the FMB, the Court found that the public will not be put to much inconvenience by accepting the exchange offer made by the writ petitioner.

Key takeaways

The petitioner offered 28 cents in exchange for the 15 cents she presently enjoys - i.e., 13 cents more than she is presently enjoying - so the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the writ petitioner.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH) | W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023 | Decided 16.02.2026 | G.R.Swaminathan & R.Kalaimathi JJ. (judgment authored by Swaminathan J.). Land exchange / cart-track realignment — Certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 — Petitioner R.Pechiammal, resident of Mettukundu Village owning 1 acre 83 cents in Survey Nos.388/1 to 388/3, Arakudumbapatti Village, had her holding cut into two halves by a public pathway running diagonally across it; having occupied a portion of the pathway (Survey No.388/3) she faced an eviction order after local public objections, and her offer of 28 cents of land on the southern and western side in exchange was rejected by the District Collector (Na.Ka.No.G4/47152/2021, dt.25.01.2023), followed by an eviction notice from the Thasildar (Na.Ka.No.A2/2368/2021, dt.02.02.2023), the rejection being attributed to objections received from members of the general public — The Court referred to RSO 26-A(vii) (where a private owner is willing to relinquish small extents of land not exceeding 25 cents in each case for the consolidation of his holding), inspected the FMB, found that acceptance of the exchange would not put the public to much inconvenience, and noting that the petitioner had offered 13 cents more than she presently enjoys, held that the balance of convenience tilted in her favour — The order impugned in the writ petition was set aside; the writ petition was allowed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 16.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

and

W.M.P(MD)No.2350 of 2023

R.Pechiammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

5.The Thasildar, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

1/6

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

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

6.The Block Development Officer, Aruppukottai Village Panchayat, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents / Respondents

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 on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned rejection order passed by him vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.G4/47152/2021 dated 25.01.2023 and subsequent eviction notice issued by the fifth respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/2368/2021 dated 02.02.2023 and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to approve the realignment of Vandipathai / cart track running in the petitione's patta land in Survey No.388/1 of Arakudumbapatti Village, Virudhunagar District within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is the resident of Mettukundu Village. She owns 1 acre and 83 cents of land in Survey No.388/1 to 388/3. A public 2/6

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

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

pathway runs diagonally across her agricultural land. A a result, her land had been cut into two halves. The petitioner appears to have used a portion of the public pathway comprised in Survey No.388/3. Since the local public objected to such encroachment, eviction order was issued. The petitioner came forward with an offer to allot 28 cents of land on the southern and western side of her land. The authority did not accept this exchange offer on the ground that objections had been received from the members of general public. Challenging this stand of the authority, this writ petition has been filed.

3.RSO 26-A(vii) reads as follows:

“(vii) where a private owner is willing to relinquish small extents of land not exceeding 25 cents in each case for the consolidation of his holding.”

4.We had a look at the FMB. A mere look at the same would show

that the public will not be put to much inconvenience by accepting the exchange offer made by the writ petitioner. We have to balance the interests of the general public and that of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has offered 28 cents of land to consolidate her holding in exchange for 15 cents of land. We are more than satisfied that the

3/6

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

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

balance of convenience tilts in favour of the writ petitioner. It is seen that the writ petitioner has offered 13 cents more than what she is presently enjoying. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside.

5.This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[G.R.S., J.] [R.K.M, J.] 16.02.2026

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

To

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

4/6

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

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

5.The Thasildar, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

6.The Block Development Officer, Aruppukottai Village Panchayat, Virudhunagar District.

5/6

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

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

AND R.KALAIMATHI, J. MGA

W.P(MD)No.2584 of 2023

16.02.2026

6/6

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