T.Manivel v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

ORDER This writ petition has been filed against the impugned proceedings dated

18.08.2023 passed by the 1st respondent. Page3 of 8

¶2Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5.

¶3By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner is the adjacent land owner of 6th respondent, who acquired the subject property by virtue of assignment deed dated 14.03.2007. As per the assignment condition, no transfer of property shall be made within a period of 30 years from the date of assignment. However, in contrary to the said condition, the 6th respondent had sold the subject property to the 7th respondent, who is none other than his son, vide sale deeds dated 06.07.2016. Subsequently, the 7th respondent had sold the subject property to the 8th respondent vide sale deed dated 07.05.2020. Hence, the petitioner filed a detailed representation to cancel the assignment deed executed in favour of 6th respondent. However, the said representation was rejected by the 5th respondent vide order dated

11.04.2022. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated

07.03.2023. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent. In the meantime, a suit was filed by the 8th Page4 of 8 respondent in OS.No.272/2022 without impleading the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the revision petition was rejected, vide order dated 18.08.2023, by directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by impleading himself in the aforesaid suit. Hence, this petition.

¶5In reply, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the impugned order came to be passed by the 1st respondent after due consideration of all the aspects. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the subject property and hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶6Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶7In the case on hand, according to the petitioner, the subject property was assigned to the 6th respondent vide Assignment deed dated 14.03.2007 with a condition not to sell the said property within a period of 30 years from the date of assignment. However, the 6th respondent had sold the subject property to his son/7th respondent vide sale deed dated 06.07.2016 and subsequently, the 7th respondent sold the said property to the 8th respondent vide sale deed dated Page5 of 8

07.05.2020, which is contrary to the condition imposed during the assignment of property to the 6th respondent.

¶8Hence, by citing the aforesaid two transactions, the petitioner had filed a detailed representation seeking for cancellation of assignment on the ground that there is a violation of assignment condition. The said representation was rejected vide order dated 11.04.2022. Subsequently, an appeal and a revision petition were also filed by the petitioner against the rejection order. However, the same were also rejected vide order dated 07.03.2023 & 18.08.2023 respectively.

¶9Upon perusal of the impugned rejection order dated 18.08.2023, it appears that the 1st respondent had duly considered all the aspects in a proper manner and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, where a suit in OS.No.272/2022 is pending in respect of the subject property. Hence, there is no illegality or error in the decision-making process on the part of the 1st respondent.

¶10That apart, it was also submitted by respondents that the petitioner is no way connected with the subject property. When such being the case, it is clear that the present petition is filed only to create trouble to the 6th respondent. Page6 of 8 Therefore, being unhappy with the attitude of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition with cost.

¶11Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the District Collector is directed to recover the said amount to deposit the same as stated above.

¶12With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶13Post this matter for reporting compliance on 18.08.2026. 13-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa To

¶1The Commissioner of Land Administration Land Administration department, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai Page7 of 8

¶2the District collector Salem district, Salem

¶3The District Revenue officer Mettur taluk, Salem district, Salem

¶4The Revenue Divisional officer Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem district

¶5The Tahsildar Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem district WPoNo.o26713oofo2026 KRISHNANoRAMASAMYoJ. nsa WPoNo.o26713oofo2026 ANDoWMPoNO.o29208oOFo2026 13-07-2026 Page8oofo8

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NO. 29208 OF 2026 T.Manivel S/o. S.Thangavel, D.No. 3- 5- 170 Mathottam, Ayyampuduru and post, Mettur Taluk, Salem district 636 303 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner of Land Administration Land Administration department, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai 2. the District collector Salem district, Salem 3. The District Revenue officer Mettur taluk, Salem district, Salem 4. The Revenue Divisional officer Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem district 5. The Tahsildar Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem district 6. Maheswari W/o. Veerappan, MLA Kattuvalavu, Chinnthanda post, Mettur Taluk, Salem district Page2 of 8 7. Nagaraj S/o. Veerappan, MLA Kattuvalavu, Chinnthanda post, Mettur Taluk, Salem district 8. Arputham W/o. Dhandapani, Govindapadi, Govindapadi post, Kaveripuram Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem district ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Proc. No.F2/ 4412756/ 2023 dated 18.08.2023 quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the assignment in favour of the 6th respondent and to take appropriate action against the respondents 6 to 8 for violation of condition in Assignment order No. 1657/ 2007 dated 14.03.2007. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Prabakaran For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, Govt.counsel for R1 to 5