A.Periyakaruppan v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC23 Feb 2026WP(MD)/26424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; K. Surender J; 23.02.2026; Ryotwari Patta; S.No.286 Soorakulam Village Sivagangai Taluk; K1/10853/2014 order dated 01.08.2024; Commissioner of Land Administration; remand afresh; earlier order dated 14.11.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.3111 of 2014; proceedings K1/14408/2013 dated 07.01.2014 set aside; Act XXVI/1948; Section 64(C) Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; notice/hearing before order; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2024 set aside; matter remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration in line with the order dated 14.11.2022, on merits and in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶¶42

A.Periyakaruppan Vs The Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were put on notice (afforded an opportunity of hearing) before the impugned orders were passed. +1 more

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The first respondent's observations/findings that paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Court's earlier order were inconsistent with Section 64(C) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948 are not sustainable, and accordingly the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 01.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in line with the order of this Court dated 14.11.2022, on merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Single Judge: K. Surender, J.; decision 23.02.2026) - W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025. Writ petition under Article 226 seeking Certiorarified Mandamus against proceedings No.K1/10853/2014 dated 01.08.2024 of the first respondent (Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration) concerning the petitioners' claim for Ryotwari Patta over S.No.286 of Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District. The Court held that the first respondent's findings purporting to treat paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Court's earlier order (dated 14.11.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.3111 of 2014) as inconsistent with Section 64(C) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948 were unsustainable, and that the impugned order was not in line with the earlier order. Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with the order dated 14.11.2022. Petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :23.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025

¶7

A.Periyakaruppan 2. K.Chinnammal 3. C.Andichi

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, And Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Sivagangai. ... Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in K1/10853/2014 dated 01.08.2024 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to grant Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner's for the lands in S.No.286 of Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.S.R.Raghunathan for Mr.Arun Kumaar

¶15

For Respondents :M/s.Ajmal Khan

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025

¶19

Additional Advocate General I assisted by Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2024 passed by the first respondent and consequently, direct the first respondent to grant 'Ryotwari Patta' to the petitioner's for the lands in S.No.286 of Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

is that the petitioner was not put on notice before the impugned orders were passed.

¶25

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, refuting the aforesaid submission, submitted that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. However, he fairly submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not in

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025

¶29

accordance with the earlier order of this Court dated 14.02.2023 and that on this ground alone, the impugned order can be set aside.

¶30

Admittedly, this Court on 14.11.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.3111 of

¶31

2014, more particularly in paragraph 11, has passed the following order:

¶32

“11.In the light of the above, the order passed by the first

¶33

respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, namely proceedings No.K1/14408/2013 dated 07.01.2014, is set aside and the claim of the petitioners is remanded back to the first respondent and the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with Act XXVI/1948 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶34

Pursuant to the above order of this Court, the impugned orders were passed on 01.08.2024.

¶35

Having gone through the impugned order, it is seen that the first respondent has stated that the observations of this Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 are inconsistent with the provisions laid down under Section 64(C) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.26424 of 2025

¶39

Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948. The said observations/findings of the first respondent are not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶40

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 is

¶41

hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in line with the order of this Court dated 14.11.2022, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶42