W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.24978 & 24980 of 2025 and 1455 & 3877 of 2026 W.P.(MD) No.31797 of 2025 Manoj Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Registrar, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Vilangudi, Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District. 4.Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd., Unit of Shri Meenakshi Mills, Paravai, Samayanallur Post, Madurai District - 625 402. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned communication of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No. 5601/2016/J dated 23.01.2025 and quash the same and further direct the _______________ Page No. 1 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 first and second respondents to entertain and register the documents, if any presented in respect of the properties covered under the communication of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5601/2016/J dated 23.01.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R1 to R3 : Mr.I.Pinaygash Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu For R4 : Mr.M.A.Venkata Subramanian for Mr.M.Sridhar W.P.(MD) No.1822 of 2026 Manoj Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District. 3.Gujaraj Heavy Chemicals Ltd., Unit of Shri Meenakshi Mills, Paravai, Samayanallur Post, Madurai District - 625 402. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order of the first respondent in Roc No.4393/2025 A2 _______________ Page No. 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 dated 09.01.2026 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the Plot Nos.29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 comprised in Re-Survey No. 26/2B1A(Part), Paravai Village 2nd Bit, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai purchased by the petitioner under the registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.S.Selva Aditya For R1 & R2 : Mr.I.Pinaygash Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu For R3 : Mr.M.A.Venkata Subramanian for Mr.M.Sridhar W.P.(MD) No.4623 of 2026 P.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District. 3.Gujaraj Heavy Chemicals Ltd., Unit of Shri Meenakshi Mills, Paravai, Samayanallur Post, Madurai District - 625 402. ... Respondents _______________ Page No. 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order of the first respondent in Roc No.4393/2025 A2 dated 14.01.2026 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to issue Patta in the name of the petitioner in respect of the Survey Nos.108/3C, 109/2C1(p), 2E1, 111/2A(p) of RJT Nagar, Paravai Village 2nd Bit, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai purchased by the petitioner under the registered Sale Deed dated 14.08.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.S.Selva Aditya For R1 & R2 : Mr.I.Pinaygash Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu For R3 : Mr.M.A.Venkata Subramanian for Mr.M.Sridhar ***** C O M M O N O R D E R These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the following proceedings / communication: Writ Petition Number Proceedings / Communication Issued by W.P.(MD) No.31797 / 2025 Na.Ka.No.5601/2016/J dated 23.01.2025 R3 - The Revenue Divisional Officer W.P.(MD) No.1822 / 2026 Roc No.4393/2025 A2 dated 09.01.2026 R1 - The Tahsildar W.P.(MD) No.4623 / 2026 Roc No.4393/2025 A2 dated 14.01.2026 R1 - The Tahsildar _______________ Page No. 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are also seeking a direction to the District Registrar and the Sub Registrar to entertain and register the documents, if any, presented before them and also a direction to the Tahsildar to issue patta in their names in respect of the subject properties. 3. By the impugned communication dated 23.01.2025, the Revenue Divisional Officer has instructed the District Registrar and the Sub Registrar not to entertain or register any documents in respect of the subject properties. By the impugned proceedings dated 09.01.2026 and 14.01.2026, the Tahsildar has rejected the requests of the respective petitioners for issuance of patta. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the land in Survey No.34 and Re-Survey No.26/2B1A (Part) and Re-Survey No.111/2A (Part) belonged to M/s.Shri Meenakshi Mills. The respondent State Government, under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, granted exemption to the said M/s.Shri Meenakshi Mills for holding the said excess land. Subsequently, the said M/s.Shri Meenakshi Mills suffered financial crisis. Therefore, a petition was presented before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [BIFR] in Case No.55/96 for framing a scheme. The State _______________ Page No. 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 Government of Tamil Nadu was also a party to the said proceedings. After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Board sanctioned the scheme vide order dated 23.11.2001, wherein, in Paragraph 7.4, it has been stated that the surplus land from the industrial area may be classified as residential and exemption may be granted to the property from the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act as well as the Land Reforms Act. A corrigendum was also issued clarifying that the Land Development Act was not applicable in Tamil Nadu and that the Land Reforms Act alone would apply. 5. In such circumstances, based on the said order, the parties have acted in accordance with the directions contained therein. A portion of the excess land was sold by M/s.Shri Meenakshi Mills to the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4623 of 2026 vide a registered Sale Deed dated 14.08.2019 and also to one Balakrishnan vide a registered Sale Deed dated 17.07.2014. The said Balakrishnan converted the land into plots and prepared a layout after obtaining approval from the Town and Country Planning Department, from whom the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 of 2026 purchased certain plots. A portion of the land was also put to use for constructing a Kalyana Mandapam. _______________ Page No. 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 6. The issue was raised in the said case, where the affected party approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13518 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 12.09.2025, considered the issue, allowed the Writ Petition, granted permission to construct the Kalyana Mandapam and set aside the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 7. Now, in the present case, the issue relates to other purchasers who purchased a portion of the land from M/s.Shri Meenakshi Mills and also who purchased smaller extents of land in plots forming part of an approved layout sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department and in whose favour registered Sale Deeds were also executed. Subsequently, the purchasers submitted applications for issuance of patta. After considering the same, the impugned orders dated 09.01.2026 and 14.01.2026 came to be passed rejecting the request for issuance of patta. 8. When the petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 of 2026, who had purchased the plots vide registered Sale Deeds, intended to further sell the properties, restrictions were imposed by the official _______________ Page No. 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 respondents stating that the properties would come under surplus land and therefore, they could not alienate. In this regard, the impugned communication dated 23.01.2025 was issued to the District Registrar and the Sub Registrar instructing them not to register any documents, if presented. 9. The primary contention of the petitioners is that much water has flown under the bridge pursuant to the BIFR order and that the State Government of Tamil Nadu was also a party to the said proceedings. Therefore, the official respondents cannot now turn around and refuse to register the documents and also refuse to issue patta. 10. On perusing the BIFR order, it is seen that the State Government of Tamil Nadu was also a party to the proceedings. A specific direction was also issued to the State Government of Tamil Nadu under Clause 7.4, which is extracted hereunder: 7.4 Tamil Nadu State Government i. To allow change in the use of surplus land from Industrial to residential and exempt the said property from provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, (TULCA) and Land Development Act (LDA). ii. To waive minimum demand charges (MDC) for power for _______________ Page No. 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 the rehabilitation period. iii. To exempt SMML from power cuts during rehabilitation period. iv. To exempt payment of cess/service/sales tax on electricity for the rehabilitation period. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not having any jurisdiction to interfere with the BIFR's order. Further, the respondent has already suffered an order in W.P.(MD) No.13518 of 2024, in which it has been clearly stated as under: “9. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent labours under the impression that the petition-mentioned lands were Government lands and that they had been granted to Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. It is not so. The lands originally belonged only to Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Shri Meenakshi Mills had held the lands in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. Therefore, they had to necessarily apply to the Government to permit them to hold the excess lands under Section 37A of the Act. Permission was granted as per G.O.Ms.No. 1012 Revenue Department dated 03.12.1993. 10. But then, G.O.Ms.No.1012 Revenue Department dated 03.12.1993 cannot be viewed in isolation. Subsequent developments will have to be necessarily taken into account. The fact remains that Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., became sick and merged with the fourth respondent pursuant to the scheme sanctioned by BIFR. Clause 7.4 reads as follows:- “7.4 Tamil Nadu State Government To allow change in the use of surplus land from industrial to _______________ Page No. 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 residential and exempt the said properties from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act (TULCA) and the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961(TNRA).” Since the nomenclature of the statute were wrongly mentioned, corrigendum was issued and it reads as follows:- _______________ Page No. 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.5601/2016/J, dated 23.01.2025, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the proceedings in Roc No. 4393/2025 A2 dated 09.01.2026 and Roc No.4393/2025 A2 dated 14.01.2026 issued by the Tahsildar are clearly without jurisdiction and have been issued without properly understanding the order of rehabilitation passed by the BIFR. Accordingly, the impugned communication and the proceedings are quashed. 13. The first and second respondents in W.P.(MD) No.31797 of 2025 [District Registrar and Sub Registrar] are directed to register the documents as and when they are presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject properties. 14. The first and second respondents in W.P.(MD) Nos.1822 & 4623 of 2026 [Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer] are directed to issue patta based on the relevant Sale Deeds that may be produced by the petitioners. 15. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are allowed. _______________ Page No. 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 16.06.2026 JEN Index: Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No To 1.The District Registrar, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Sub Registrar, Vilangudi, Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional officer, Madurai District. 4.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. _______________ Page No. 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 S.SRIMATHY , J. JEN W.P.(MD) Nos.31797 of 2025 and 1822 & 4623 of 2026 16.06.2026 _______________ Page No. 13 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis