S.Jaya v. The District Collector

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M. SUNDAR, J.) Captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus and the mandamus prayer is predicated on writ petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2025 [hereinafter 'said representation' for the sake of convenience and clarity] vide which the writ petitioner has sought issue of patta by placing reliance on G.O. (Ms.) No.97, Revenue and Disaster Management [LD-1(1)] Department dated

21.02.2025.

¶2Mr. B. Sudharshanam, learned counsel for writ petitioner, submitted that inaction on the part of respondents has necessitated the filing of the captioned WP.

¶3Issue notice to respondents.

¶4Mr. T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R4.

¶5Considering the limited scope of the captioned WP, the captioned WP was taken up in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

¶6Learned State counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 fairly pointed out that prior to said representation, a notice under Section 7 of 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905)' [hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been issued but that has been issued by R4 (Executive Officer) and this Court has, time and again, held that an Executive Officer of a Panchayat does not have powers to issue a notice under Section 7. Learned State counsel submits that the Section 7 notice dated 15.05.2025 will now stand withdrawn. This submission is recorded.

¶7We preserve the rights and contentions of the State to issue a Section 7 notice afresh by a competent authority. If such a notice is issued, we also preserve the rights and contentions of writ petitioner/noticee to meet the same on its own merits.

¶8Reverting to said representation, a scanned reproduction of said representation is as follows:

¶9Learned State counsel submits that the question of whether G.O. (Ms.) No.97 alluded to supra would be applicable, may please be left open. We accede to this request and leave open the same. Learned State counsel submits that orders will be made by R3 as expeditiously as the official business of R3 permits but in any event within twelve weeks from today i.e., on or before 14.10.2025. The orders so made by R3 shall be served on the writ petitioner/applicant under due acknowledgment within five working days from the date of the order.

¶10Captioned WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S., J.) (H.C., J.)

22.07.2025 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No gpa To

¶1The District Collector Krishnagiri

¶2The Revenue Divisional Officer Collectorate Campus Krishnagiri

¶3The Tahsildar Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District

¶4The Executive Officer Uthangarai Krishnagiri District W.P.No.26244aofa2025 M.oSUNDAR,oJ. and HEMANToCHANDANGOUDAR,oJ. gpa W.P.No.26244oofo2025

22.07.2025 Pagea8aofa8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUNDAR W.P. No.26244 of 2025 S.Jaya ... Petitioner vs. 1. The District Collector Krishnagiri 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Collectorate Campus Krishnagiri 3. The Tahsildar Uthangarai Taluk Krishnagiri District 4. The Executive Officer Uthangarai Krishnagiri District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2025, submitted under G.O.(Ms.) No.97 dated 21.02.2025, seeking issuance of patta, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For petitioner : Mr. B. Sudharshanam For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.N.Muthuvel Government Advocate for R4 - - -