Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Ganesan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents—officials of the Revenue Department—to act on his representation and release his land in S.No.140/3 of Thirupparankundram Village, Madurai, from the list of lands enlisted under the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act. The petitioner contended that his land was wrongly included in the Bhoodhaan list based on an alleged donation by one Chinna Karuppa Thevar to the Board in 1961. He specifically asserted that Chinna Karuppa Thevar was not the owner of the land and had only signed as a witness to a sale deed conveying lands to the Board, not as a donor. The petitioner submitted a representation as early as March 2022, followed by a reminder on 27.06.2024, requesting release of the land. He also relied on a communication dated 08.11.2023 from the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, to the District Collector, recommending the release as sought. The first respondent, the Commissioner of Land Reforms, however, did not pass any orders on the representation. The court, after hearing both sides, noted that the petitioner only sought a writ of mandamus for consideration of his representation, and that the Tahsildar had already recommended release. Therefore, it directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application along with the Tahsildar's report and pass final orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226, Constitution of India - Where a representation seeking release of land from the Bhoodhaan list is pending and the Tahsildar has recommended such release, a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to consider the representation and pass orders within a stipulated time - The petitioner claimed that his land was wrongly included based on an alleged donation by a person who did not own it; the court found it sufficient to direct consideration rather than decide merits - Held that the first respondent shall consider the application along with the Tahsildar's report and pass final orders within twelve weeks (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation seeking release of his land from the list of lands enlisted under the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of. First respondent directed to consider petitioner's application and the Tahsildar's report dated 08.11.2023 and pass final orders within twelve weeks from receipt of order copy. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 293
Mr. M. Gururaj for petitioner, Mrs. K. Malathi for respondents
1. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai; 2. The District Collector, Madurai; 3. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai; 4. The Tahsildar, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus.
Remedy Sought
Direct the respondents to take action on the petitioner's representation and release his land in S.No.140/3 of Thirupparankundram Village, Madurai, from the list of lands under the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that his land was erroneously included in the Bhoodhaan list based on an alleged donation by a person who did not own the land and had only signed as a witness; the respondents failed to act on his representation.
Previous Decisions
Previous decisions not referenced
Issues
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for release of land from the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act list.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the inclusion was erroneous as the alleged donor, Chinna Karuppa Thevar, was not the owner and had signed only as a witness; the Tahsildar had recommended release; representations dated March 2022 and 27.06.2024 were not decided by the first respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
When a representation for release of land from the Bhoodhaan list is pending and a favorable recommendation from the Tahsildar exists, it is appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to consider the representation and pass orders within a reasonable time, without deciding the merits of the claim.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner seeks release of the subject lands from the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna, Act.
It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the said Chinna Karuppa Thevar was not owning the subject S.No.140/3, which has been allegedly donated to the Board.
The petitioner has given a representation as early as in March, 2022, for considering the subject land being released from the Board.
The first respondent, however, has not passed any orders on the said representation, after taking into account the report of the Tahsildar.
Considering the fact that the petitioner only seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, it would suffice to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and also the report of the Tahsildar and pass final orders within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Procedural History
Petitioner submitted a representation in March 2022 and a reminder on 27.06.2024 for release of land. The Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram Taluk, sent a communication dated 08.11.2023 to the District Collector recommending release. The first respondent did not pass any orders. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in 2025 seeking mandamus.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act:
