Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S. Usharani, 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. The respondents were the Commissioner of Land Reforms, the District Collector, the District Revenue Officer, and the Tahsildar of Thiruparankundram Taluk. The dispute pertained to land in Survey No. 140/3 of Thirupparankundram Village, Madurai, which had been enlisted under the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act. The Board claimed that the land had been donated by one Chinna Karuppa Thevar in 1961. The petitioner contended that Chinna Karuppa Thevar did not own the land and had only signed as a witness to the sale deed conveying lands in favour of the Board. She further stated that the Tahsildar had sent a communication dated 08.11.2023 to the District Collector recommending the release of the land as sought by the petitioner. Despite representations made by the petitioner in March 2022 and a reminder on 27.06.2024, the first respondent had not passed any orders on the representation. The Court observed that the petitioner only sought issuance of a writ of mandamus and that it would suffice to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and the report of the Tahsildar. Accordingly, the Court directed the first respondent to pass final orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner sought release of land from Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act alleging lack of title of donor - Court directed first respondent to consider application and Tahsildar's report within 12 weeks - Held that a writ of mandamus can issue to compel consideration of pending representation. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
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
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and the report of the Tahsildar and pass final orders within twelve weeks. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Consideration of Representation
- Direction to Authority
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 297
Mr.M.Gururaj, Mrs.K.Malathi
1.The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Cheppakkam, Chennai – 600 005; 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai; 3.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, 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 seeking a writ of mandamus
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction to respondents to consider her representation and release her land in S.No.140/3 of Thirupparankundram Village from the list of lands enlisted under the Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that the Board claimed donation by one Chinna Karuppa Thevar who did not own the land; the petitioner's representation for release remained unactioned
Previous Decisions
No previous decisions mentioned; the Tahsildar had sent a communication dated 08.11.2023 recommending release
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
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Chinna Karuppa Thevar did not own the subject land and was only a witness to the sale deed, and that the Tahsildar had recommended release
Respondents did not oppose the issuance of a mandamus for consideration
Ratio Decidendi
Where a representation for relief is pending and the authority has not acted on it, a writ of mandamus can be issued directing consideration of the representation in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The case of the petitioner is that the Board is claiming donation by one Chinna Karuppa Thevar to the Board, as early as in the year 1961.
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
The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2025 after having made a representation in March 2022 and a reminder on 27.06.2024, and relying on the Tahsildar's communication dated 08.11.2023. The writ petition was heard and disposed of on 19.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Tamil Nadu Bhoodhaan Yagna Act:
