Sumathi Vs The District Collector

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 pertaining the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Na.Ka.No.COLR/1710/2025-H3 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents 3 and 4 to remove the entry of Forgery document mentioned in the Encumbrance certificate related to the petitioners Document No.5740/2023 dated 27.09.2023 on the file of the 4th respondent in respect of the property in Sy.No.686/2B2B to the extent of 0.09.70 Hectares (24 cents) of land situated at Alangulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶20

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order

¶23

dated 16.04.2025.

¶24

2

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026

¶27

Heard Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian, learned counsel

¶28

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶29

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 has been passed by the 1st respondent upon a petition filed by a third party, stating that the land in S.No.686/2B2B, admeasuring an extent of 0.09.70 hectares (24 cents), situated at Alangulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District, belongs to one Masilamani, who is deceased and that there are no legal heirs and therefore, the land should vest with the Government. The 1^st respondent considered the said representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2025.

¶30

After considering the entire matter, the impugned order has been passed directing the registering authorities, viz., respondents 3 and 4 to cancel all the documents. It is stated that pursuant to the impugned

¶31

3

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026

¶34

order an entry has also been made in the encumbrance register, as if all the documents have been ordered to be cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land belongs to the petitioner. However, when the registered sale deed was ordered to be cancelled, no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by involving the petitioner.

¶36

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the 1^st respondent issued the necessary advisory to the respondents 3 and 4 after finding that the land is Government land.

¶37

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and

¶38

perused the material records of the case.

¶39

The impugned order at best would amount to the opinion of the

¶40

1^st respondent and would not be automatically binding on the petitioner

¶41

4

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026

¶44

or any other party. Whenever a letter is issued stating that the land is Government interest land and requiring cancellation or refusal of registration under Section 22A, it is for respondents 3 and 4 to conduct an enquiry. The order of the Collector by itself would not be binding on the 3^rd respondent before making the necessary entry in the encumbrance register as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶45

The respondents 3 and 4 shall treat the same only as an objection under Section 22A, as the said order has not been passed after hearing the petitioner. Notice of enquiry shall be issued to the petitioner, the District Collector, the Tahsildar, and other interested parties, as the case may be. After hearing them and upon due satisfaction, the 4^th respondent shall decide the issue in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner (HR & CE) (W.P. No. 30589 of 2012, etc., batch) . The parties shall be entitled to avail further remedies as directed therein.

¶46

5

¶47

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

¶48

W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026

¶49

In the light of the above judgement, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 16.04.2025 shall stand set aside and the entry mentioned as forgery document shall be removed in the encumbrance certificate. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.03.2026

NCC:Yes/No rgm

6

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

¶54

W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026

¶55

To