Disposed

Arulmigu Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple Rep by its Managing Trustee, v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC9 Feb 2026WP(MD)/3523/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple sought mandamus to remove 'Blocked' entries in its patta for Devaram Village lands. Government Pleader stated a recommendation had been sent to the Collector for onward transmission. Court directed the District Collector to forward the recommendation and respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to forward recommendation; respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on merits within four weeks.

Arulmigu Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple Rep by its… — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :09.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶7

Arulmigu Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple Rep. by its Managing Trustee ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

¶8

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Director of Survey ad Settlement Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The District Collector, Theni District. 4. The District Revenue Officer, Theni.

¶9

The Assistant Surveyor, Theni District.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. 7.The Tahsildar Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. 8.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Theni. ... Respondents 1/5

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶13

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps for removal of the entry as “Blocked” in the patta bearing Nos.1385, 2191 in respect of the properties comprised in S,Nos.942/1B, 942/2, 910/3 to an extent of 0.4.50 hectares, 0.81.00 hectares, 0.88.50 hectares, Devaram Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District in consonance with the proceeding dated 24.05.2025, 23.08.2025 in Na.Ka.No.3135/2024/A2 and Na.Ka.No.22223/D4/2025 on the file of the respondents 6, 7 and the order dated 20.01.2026 made in Cont.Petition (MD) No.1846/2025 in W.P.(MD) No.7199/2025.

¶14

For Petitioner :M/s.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents :Mr.B.Ramanathan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R7 Mr.P.Subbaraj Spl. Government Pleader for R8

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps for removal of the entry as “Blocked” in the patta bearing Nos.1385, 2191 in respect of the properties comprised in S,Nos.942/1B, 942/2, 910/3 to an extent of 0.4.50 hectares, 0.81.00 hectares, 0.88.50 hectares, Devaram Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District in consonance with the proceeding dated 24.05.2025, 23.08.2025 in Na.Ka.No.3135/2024/A2 and Na.Ka.No.22223/D4/2025 on the file of the respondents 6, 7 and the order dated 20.01.2026 made in Contempt Petition (MD) No.1846/2025

¶17

2/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶20

in W.P.(MD) No.7199/2025.

¶21

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 7 submitted that the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer had already been sent a recommendation for removal of the entries in respect of the subject property marked as “Blocked” to the District Collector, who, in turn, would forward the same to the respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

In view of the above submission, this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the third respondent/District Collector to forward the recommendation to respondents 1 and 2. Upon receipt of the same, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider it and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

(K.SURENDER, J) 09.02.2026

¶24

NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN

¶25

3/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶28

¶29

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶30

The Director of Survey ad Settlement Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶31

The District Collector, Theni District.

¶32

The District Revenue Officer, Theni.

¶33

The Assistant Surveyor, Theni District.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶35

7.The Tahsildar

¶36

Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶37

8.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Theni.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶41

K.SURENDER, J.

¶42

PKN

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.3523 of 2026

¶44

09.02.2026

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

Arulmigu Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple Rep by its Managing Trustee, v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Sri Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple Rep by its Managing Trustee, v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Pitchai Vs The District Collector

Thenmozhi Vs The Tahsildar

M.Prabu Vs a.Mariselvam

Balavesam Vs The Land Surveyor

P.Murugesan Vs The District Collector

Chinnadurai Vs K. Zakir Hussain