Mahesh @ Maheshdurai R v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration

O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner's family members in respect of the lands comprised in S.Nos.1/2 and 9/8, situated at Sekkalaikottai Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶2With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶3The grievance of the petitioner is that he is one of the legal heirs of the Sivagangai Zamindari family, being the grandson of late Page No. 2 of 7 D.Shanmugaraja, the last Zamindar of the Sivagangai Estate. Late Shanmugaraja had three legal heirs, namely, Rajakumari Rajalakshmi Reguraj (the petitioner's mother), D.S. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy Raja and Ramachandra Raja. After the demise of his mother, the petitioner has been managing the properties that fell to his share.

¶4The petitioner's grandfather had formed a cultivating garden known as a 'private thoppu' in lands comprised in Survey Nos.1/2 (137.10 acres) and 9/8 (26.98 acres) situated at Sekkalaikottai Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. The said lands were in the possession and enjoyment of the Sivagangai Zamindari family.

¶5Subsequently, the village was taken over by the State under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act']. The above lands were reclassified as forest lands without proper notification.

¶6After the demise of the petitioner's grandfather and uncle, the petitioner's mother filed an application in the year 1995 before the fourth respondent seeking grant of ryotwari patta in respect of the subject lands. Page No. 3 of 7 The fourth respondent rejected the claim on 05.10.1995 on the ground of delay. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner's mother preferred a revision before the second respondent, who allowed the revision, condoned the delay under Section 5(2) of Act and remanded the matter to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration.

¶7Thereafter, the fourth respondent, after conducting a fresh enquiry, granted ryotwari patta by order dated 05.07.1996. The third respondent confirmed the same by order dated 23.03.2000 in a revision filed by the fifth respondent. Subsequently, the fifth respondent preferred a further revision before the second respondent, which was allowed on

27.07.2001 without taking into consideration the earlier condonation order. A further revision filed by the other legal heirs came to be dismissed on 26.09.2003.

¶8According to the petitioner, the principal reason for rejection of the patta claim is delay, which had already been condoned by the Director of Survey and Settlement on 10.11.1995. The orders dated 27.07.2001 and

26.09.2003 were thus passed without proper application of mind. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation to the first Page No. 4 of 7 respondent on 24.09.2025 seeking reconsideration of the matter. However, the first respondent has not passed any orders on the said representation till date. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶9The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks.

¶10Recording the above submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The representation shall be disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The first respondent is also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested parties who may be affected by such decision, before passing any order. Page No. 5 of 7

¶11With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. [K.SURENDER, J.]

06.02.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To

1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Cheppakam, Chennai - 600 005.

2.The Director of Land Survey and Settlement, Ezhilagam, Cheppakam, Chennai - 600 005.

3.The Land Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.

4.The Assistant Land Settlement Officer, Madurai.

5.The District Forest Officer, Sivagangai. Page No. 6 of 7 K.SURENDER

, J.

JEN

06.02.2026 Page No. 7 of 7

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER R.Mahesh @ Maheshdurai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Cheppakam, Chennai - 600 005. 2.The Director of Land Survey and Settlement, Ezhilagam, Cheppakam, Chennai - 600 005. 3.The Land Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. 4.The Assistant Land Settlement Officer, Madurai. 5.The District Forest Officer, Sivagangai. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2025 for granting Page No. 1 of 7 patta to the petitioner's family members in respect of the lands comprised in S.Nos.1/2 and 9/8, situated at Sekkalaikottai Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran Government Advocate *****