Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 148608 (MAD)

Veerasamy K v. State of Tamil Nadu

WP(MD)/18981/2025 · 2025-10-22

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :22.10.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 1. K.Veerasamy 2. Mariyayee ... Petitioners Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli - 1. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli District, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli - 1. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli. 4. The Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli West Taluk, Taluk Office, Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka. Aa6/3162/2023 dated 02.06.2025, quash the same and 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 consequently directing the 2nd respondent to enter the names of the Pattadhars K. Veerasamy and V. Mariyayee in the computer generated Survey Land Register Patta relating to an extent of 0.06 cents in Ward B, Block No.21, TS No.22 part and TS No.87/Part, Puthur Village, Tiruchirapalli. For Petitioners : Mr.S.K.Mani For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Addl. Government Advocate O R D E R The first petitioner asserts that an HSD patta was issued in the year 1984. Pursuant thereto, it is stated that the petitioner and his wife constructed a thatched hut structure for residential purposes, but such structure was destroyed during the floods in the year 1986. According to the petitioner, proceedings were initiated for the acquisition of the land in Town Survey No.87 and such proceedings were subsequently abandoned. Since the revenue records classified the land as 'Sarkar Poramboke', by relying on Inam Tennur 'A' register, the petitioner had applied for re- classification and issuance of patta. The order impugned herein was issued in the said facts and circumstances. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the proceedings relating to the issuance of HSD pattas. He also relied on the judgment of this court in G.Radhakrishna Chettiar and others v. State of Madras, (1956) 2 MLJ 279, for the proposition that there is a limitation period of three years under the Madras Town Planning Act for the completion of acquisition. In this case, he submitted that the acquisition in relation to the proposed road expansion was abandoned. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order was issued without appreciating these aspects and that such order is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader refutes these contentions by relying heavily on the impugned order. He points out that it is recorded therein that the authenticity of HSD/1136/1984, dated 21.03.1984 could not be ascertained because the relevant files are not traceable. He also pointed out that the land is presently being used by J.M. Hospitals and the occupants of 25 houses as a pathway. 4. In the impugned order, the classification of the land as per Town Survey records is recorded as 'Sarkar Poramboku Road'. Thereafter, the 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 order records, in relevant part, as under: 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 5. As contended by learned Additional Government Pleader, the District Revenue Officer has recorded that it is not possible to record any findings on the authenticity of proceedings bearing HSD/1136/1984, dated 21.03.1984, since the relevant files are not found. Further, factual finding that T.S.No.87 is being used by J.M.Hospital and the owners/occupants of 25 houses as a pathway is also recorded therein. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the order impugned herein. Therefore, I decline to interfere with such order. The writ petition is consequently dismissed without any order as to costs. 22.10.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli - 1. 2. The District Revenue Officer, 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 Tiruchirapalli District, Collectorate, Tiruchirapalli - 1. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli. 4. The Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli West Taluk, Taluk Office, Tiruchirapalli. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J. PKN ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 18981 of 2025 22.10.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis