M.Selvi v. The Givernment of Tamil Nadu

JUDGMENT (Delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ order dated 23.01.2026 in W.P.No.1522 of 2026 is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

¶2The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The appellant executed a Gift Deed on 10.01.2008 and gifted a portion of her property for public purposes. The property gifted was converted as pathway for the benefit of the village people. In lieu of gift deed executed by the petitioner, the Block Development Officer issued a certificate stating that the case of the appellant will be considered under the priority category in District Employment Exchange, Villupuram. Accordingly, the appellant registered her name along with her certificates in the District Employment Exchange, Villupuram. While so, the Tahsildar passed an order rejecting the application of the appellant for appointment. The Tahsildar mainly stated in the impugned order that the case of the land losers would be considered for appointment only if they are eligible under the Scheme. In the case of the appellant, her husband is employed in transport corporation and therefore, she is not eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme for appointment under the land losers category. Page3 of 5

¶3In the present case, it is not the case of land acquisition. It is a voluntary gift deed executed by the appellant to use a portion of land for public usage. Pertinently, no compensation has been received by the appellant for execution of gift deed. Therefore, the case of the appellant gifting her property for public purposes cannot be compared or equated with the land acquisition proceedings wherein compensation would be settled in favour of the land owners. In this context, the Block Development Officer issued a certificate stating that priority will be granted to appellant for appointment through the Employment Exchange. The said certificate cannot be construed as infirm and in fact, it is a concession shown to the appellant, who gifted her land to provide priority in appointment through District Employment Exchange. In view of the above factum, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant under the priority quota for appointment in any suitable post through District Employment Exchange as per her turn and employment seniority and by following the procedure as contemplated under law. With these directions, the writ order impugned stands modified and the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 05-06-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order gm Page4 of 5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. gm To

¶1The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The District Collector, Office of The District Collector, Villupuram.

¶3The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶4The Tahsildar Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶5The Block Development Officer, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶6The Chairman, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶7The Commissioner, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District. 05-06-2026 Page5 of 5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.No.13017 of 2026 M.Selvi W/o.Murugan ..Appellant Vs 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector, Office of The District Collector, Villupuram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 4. The Tahsildar Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 5. The Block Development Officer, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 6. The Chairman, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District. 7. The Commissioner, Gingee Panchayat Union, Villupuram District. ..Respondents Page2 of 5 Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 23.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.1522 of 2026. For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan For Respondents : Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel *****