Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Srinivasan vs The District Collector on 19 November, 2025

Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED : 19.11.2025

                                                           CORAM:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

                                          W.P(MD)No.31214 of 2025
                                                  and
                                         W.M.P(MD)No.24437 of 2025

                Srinivasan                                               ... Petitioner

                                                      Vs

                1. The District Collector,
                District Collector's Office,
                Tanjore,
                Tanjore District.
                2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                R.D.O. Office,
                Tanjore, Tanjore District.
                3. The Tahsildar,
                Taluk Office,
                Boodhalur, Tanjore District.                              ... 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 2nd respondent proceedings made in Na.Ka.3641/2023/A2,
                dated on 14.08.2025, quash the same and further direct the respondents to
                reassign the lands situated at Tanjore District, Boodhalur Taluk, Sengipatti
                Village, Punjai S.F.Nos.442/15, 452/2C, 453/8, 462B/27, (New S.F.No.526/24)
                and S.F.Nos.480/5, 482/8, 488/1, 488/2, 488/4, 496/19B, 501/11, 511/1, 511/2


                1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am )
                admeasuring 3.02.5 hectare (Acre 7.46 cents) in favour of legal heirs of
                petitioner's father Sappani Muthu.


                                  For Petitioners             : Mr.R.Sundar
                                  For Respondents             : Mr.K.Balasubramani
                                                                Special Government Pleader


                                                           ORDER

The properties described in paragraph 2 of the affidavit belong to the petitioner's father. He had availed of a loan from the Government under specific scheme. Because the petitioner's father did not make repayment in accordance with the schedule prescribed therein, the lands were attached and classification was changed to Anadheenam. Subsequently, the entire dues, along with interest, were remitted by the petitioner's father and a certificate dated 15.02.1997 was given to this effect. After the death of the petitioner's father on 26.07.1996, the petitioner followed up with the respondents to get back the lands. By impugned order dated 14.08.2025, the petitioner's request was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar had made a positive recommendation to the Revenue Divisional Officer that the lands may be handed over to the petitioner. Disregarding such recommendation, he 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am ) submits that the impugned order was issued. He also submits that the impugned order draws reference to Revenue Standing Order 45(4)(1) as the basis for rejection. He points out that no time limit is prescribed in the relevant standing order.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the request was rejected on account of not making the payments within 12 years. Since the property has been reclassified as Anadheenam, he submits that the petitioner should approach the District Collector.

4. On perusal of the operative paragraph of the impugned order, it is recorded therein, in relevant part, as under:-

                                “Nkw;fhZk;     epyq;fs;   muRf;F     mlkhdk;
                           nra;ag;gl;ljpypUe;J   12   Mz;LfSf;Fs;    epYitj;

njhifapid tl;bAld; nrYj;jp cupa cj;juT ngw;W kW xg;gil nra;a ,aYk;. Mdhy; ,e;Neu;tpy; tUtha; Nfhl;l mYtyu; ep.K.2474/74/m8 ehs;.10.03.1974 ,d; gb Nkw;fz;l epyq;fs; muR thq;fpa epykhf (Bought - in-land) khw;wg;gl;Ls;sJ vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;fz;l flid njhlu;e;J kDjhuuhy; fld; epYitj; njhif nrYj;jpajw;fhd urPJfspy; 18.10.1994 md;W nrYj;jg;gl;ljhfTk;> jQ;rhT+u; tl;lhl;rpau; e.f.14299/93/m1 ehs;.15.12.1997 ,d; gb kDjhuu; fld; njhif ahTk; tl;b cs;gl nrYj;jg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vdTk;> Nkw;gb fld; ghf;fp vJk; epYitapy; ,y;iy vd fld; jPu;T rhd;W 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am ) mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vdTk; Mtzq;fs; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

vdNt> kDjhuUf;F tUtha; epiy Miz vz;

45(4)(1) ,y; njuptpj;Js;s topKiwfspd; gb 12 Mz;L fhyj;jpw;Fs; fld; ghf;fp nrYj;jtpy;iy vd;gjhy; 496/19B> 501/11> 511/1> 511/2 Mfpa Gy vz;fSf;F gl;lh Nfhupa kDjhuu; Nfhupf;ifahdJ epuhfupf;fg;gLfpwJ.

Gy vz;fs; 488/1> 488/2 kw;Wk; 488/4 Mfpait epy clik Nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpy; muR eQ;ir jupR vd gjpthfpAs;sJ.

Nkw;fz;l epyq;fs; ahTk; kDjhuu; fpuak;

ngw;wpUe;jhYk; fpua Mtzj;jpy; %y Mtzk; njhlu;ghd tptuk; VJk; Fwpg;gplg;glhkYk; mit epy clik gjpT Nkk;ghl;L jpl;lj;jpy; Nkw;fz;l Mtzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy; gl;lh Nfhupajw;fhd tptuk; ,y;yhkYk; UDR ,y; muR eQ;ir tifghLila jupR vd gjpthfpAs;sjhy;

kDjhuUf;F xg;gil nra;a toptif VJkpy;iy vd;gjhy; kDjhuu; Nfhupf;ifahdJ epuhfupf;fg;gLfpwJ.” As is noticeable from the above extract, it is recorded categorically that the entire dues along with interest were paid on 15.12.1997. It is also evident that a certificate to that effect was issued.

4/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am )

5. In those circumstances, the request was rejected by referring to Revenue Standing Order 45(4)(1), which is as under:-

“In the matter of assignment of bought-in-lands, the original owners or their undisputed heirs should be preferred to outsiders, provided that the assigning authority is satisfied that the original owner was not a wilful defaulter and that the default was due to circumstances beyond the defaulter's control and that such assignment is otherwise unobjectionable. If there be more than one heir of the original owner, the assigning authority shall have the power to decide to whom among them the land should be reassigned. The re-assignment will be free of market value; but, the re-assignment should be ordered only on the assignee paying the arrears of land revenue for which the land was bought-in, together with the interest thereon. Back assessment should also be collected from the year in which the land was bought-in, to the year of re-assignment or for a period of twelve years, whichever is less. In cases where the land has been under the occupation of any person or persons other than the original owner or his successor in title, for any period during the 12 years immediately preceding the year of reassignment, the period of such occupation should be excluded and back assessment should be collected only for the remaining period. If before the land was bought-in, and takkavi loan had been granted to the original owner on the security of the land and if such loan amount has not been repaid in full, the loan amount or the balance due, together with interest should also be 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am ) recovered from the original owner or his undisputed heir before the land is re-assigned to him, even though the loan arrears, have been written off the account as irrecoverable.”

6. The said provision prescribes that assessment dues for the earlier period of 12 years should be collected from the assignee upto the year of reassignment after excluding the period when the land was not under the occupation of the original owner. It does not prescribe that reassignment is impermissible in cases where the payment is made after 12 years.

7. Consequently, the reason for rejection is untenable. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Because the lands are currently classified as “Anadheenam”, it is necessary for the petitioner to make a request to the District Collector. If the petitioner makes such request within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the District Collector is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits within three months from the date of receipt thereof after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

19.11.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RJR 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am ) To

1. The District Collector, District Collector's Office, Tanjore, Tanjore District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, R.D.O. Office, Tanjore, Tanjore District.

3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Boodhalur, Tanjore District.

7/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am ) SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RJR W.P(MD)No.31214 of 2025 19.11.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:56 am )