Madras High Court
Sumathi vs The District Collector on 27 March, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 27.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA
CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.6733, 6735 and 6739 of 2026
Sumathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tenkasi District.
3. The District Registrar,
Tenkasi Registration District,
Tenkasi.
4. The Sub-Registrar,
Alangulam Sub-Registrar Office,
Tenkasi District.
5. The Thasildar,
Alangulam Taluka,
Tenkasi District. ...Respondents
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records pertaining the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in
Na.Ka.No.COLR/1710/2025-H3 passed by the 1st respondent and quash
the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents 3 and 4 to
remove the entry of Forgery document mentioned in the Encumbrance
certificate related to the petitioners Document No.5740/2023 dated
27.09.2023 on the file of the 4th respondent in respect of the property in
Sy.No.686/2B2B to the extent of 0.09.70 Hectares (24 cents) of land
situated at Alangulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District and
pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian
For Respondents :Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 16.04.2025.
2https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026
2. Heard Mr.A.Sankararamasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 has been passed by the 1st respondent upon a petition filed by a third party, stating that the land in S.No.686/2B2B, admeasuring an extent of 0.09.70 hectares (24 cents), situated at Alangulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District, belongs to one Masilamani, who is deceased and that there are no legal heirs and therefore, the land should vest with the Government.
The 1st respondent considered the said representation pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.329 of 2025.
4. After considering the entire matter, the impugned order has been passed directing the registering authorities, viz., respondents 3 and 4 to cancel all the documents. It is stated that pursuant to the impugned 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026 order an entry has also been made in the encumbrance register, as if all the documents have been ordered to be cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land belongs to the petitioner. However, when the registered sale deed was ordered to be cancelled, no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by involving the petitioner.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the 1st respondent issued the necessary advisory to the respondents 3 and 4 after finding that the land is Government land.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
8. The impugned order at best would amount to the opinion of the 1st respondent and would not be automatically binding on the petitioner 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026 or any other party. Whenever a letter is issued stating that the land is Government interest land and requiring cancellation or refusal of registration under Section 22A, it is for respondents 3 and 4 to conduct an enquiry. The order of the Collector by itself would not be binding on the 3rd respondent before making the necessary entry in the encumbrance register as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
9. The respondents 3 and 4 shall treat the same only as an objection under Section 22A, as the said order has not been passed after hearing the petitioner. Notice of enquiry shall be issued to the petitioner, the District Collector, the Tahsildar, and other interested parties, as the case may be. After hearing them and upon due satisfaction, the 4th respondent shall decide the issue in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner (HR & CE) (W.P. No. 30589 of 2012, etc., batch). The parties shall be entitled to avail further remedies as directed therein.
5https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026
10. In the light of the above judgement, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 16.04.2025 shall stand set aside and the entry mentioned as forgery document shall be removed in the encumbrance certificate. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.03.2026 NCC:Yes/No rgm 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026 To
1. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.
3. The District Registrar, Tenkasi Registration District, Tenkasi.
4. The Sub-Registrar, Alangulam Sub-Registrar Office, Tenkasi District.
5. The Thasildar, Alangulam Taluka, Tenkasi District.
7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
rgm W.P(MD)No.8240 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.6733, 6735 and 6739 of 2026 27.03.2026 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis