J.Manimegalai v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC4 Feb 2026WP(MD)/2942/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(MD) No.2942 of 2026; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; K. Surender, J.; decided 04.02.2026; writ of mandamus under Article 226; District Revenue Officer, Madurai; revision petition dated 10.11.2025 returned for delay; re-submission with delay condonation; fresh revision permitted; sixteen-week disposal timeline; enquiry on merits; hearing to petitioner, private respondent P. Sivagami and interested parties; no costs; disposed without opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a fresh revision petition; direction to the first respondent to consider it and pass appropriate orders within sixteen weeks of receipt, after enquiry on its merits and in accordance with law, providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondent and other interested parties; no order as to costs. ¶¶20

J.Manimegalai Vs The District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (District Revenue Officer) should be directed to dispose of the petitioners' revision petition dated 10.11.2025 within a time period stipulated by the Court.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Recording the Additional Government Pleader's submission, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with permission to the petitioner to file a fresh revision petition.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

On a fresh revision petition being filed, the first respondent shall consider it and pass appropriate orders after conducting an enquiry on its merits and in accordance with law, within sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of such petition.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Before passing any order, the first respondent shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondent and any other interested parties who may be affected by the decision.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Mandamus (Art. 226) by four petitioners seeking disposal of their revision petition dated 10.11.2025 pending before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai. During the proceedings the revision was returned on the ground of delay. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (K. Surender, J.) disposed of the writ petition on 04.02.2026, recording the Additional Government Pleader's assurance and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, permitting the petitioners to file a fresh revision petition. On such fresh filing, the first respondent is directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders after an enquiry on its merits and in accordance with law within sixteen weeks of receipt, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondent (P. Sivagami) and any other affected interested parties. No order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2942 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.2942 of 2026

¶7

1.J.Manimegalai 2.K.Sayeeswari 3.J.Sainathan 4.J.Saravanakumar ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Madurai-625020. 2.P.Sivagami ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioners dated 10.11.2025 sent on 14.11.2025 within the time period stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For R1 : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader

¶12

¶13

____________ Page No. 1 of 4_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.2942 of 2026

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioners dated 10.11.2025, within the time period stipulated by this Court.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the filing of this Writ Petition, the revision petition dated 10.11.2025 filed by the petitioners has been returned on the ground of delay and that the petitioners will re-submit the revision along with a petition to condone the delay, which may be directed to be disposed of.

¶19

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that if the petitioner submits a fresh application as stated above, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the first respondent

¶20

Recording the above submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with permission to the petitioner to file a fresh revision petition. If the

¶21

Page No. 2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.2942 of 2026

¶24

petitioner files a fresh revision petition, the first respondent shall consider

¶25

the same and pass appropriate orders, after conducting an enquiry on its merits and in accordance with law, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of such petition. It is needless to state that before passing any order, the first respondent shall provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondent and to any other interested parties who may be affected by such decision. There shall

¶26

be no order as to costs.

¶27

[K.SURENDER, J.] 04.02.2026

¶28

JEN Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶29

¶30

The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Madurai-625020.

¶31

Page No. 3 of 4

¶32