SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Chellakili – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. – Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 31896 of 2025|W.M.P.(MD) No.25079 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M.Pirithivirajan
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

Judicial intervention under Article 226 ensures timely administrative action in land inquiries.

Headnote:With reference to Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged an inquiry notice from the Tahsildar concerning land matters. The Court directed the Tahsildar to conclude the inquiry within three months after providing necessary opportunities (Paragraph 5). The central issue was efficient processing of land inquiries. The Court's reasoning emphasizes the delay in enforcing land rights (Paragraph 3). The decision effectively compels timely administrative action regarding land matters.

Table of Content
1. challenge to inquiry notice regarding land. (Para 1 , 4)
2. delay in inquiry and importance of timely resolution. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court orders expedited conclusion of inquiry. (Para 5)

O R D E R

An inquiry notice dated 21.10.2024 of the Tashildar is challenged in this Writ Petition.

2. Although the inquiry notice has been challenged, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar has not taken steps to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable time.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for both the respondents. He submits that the Tahsildar would conclude the inquiry and issue a speaking order within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. The inquiry notice under challenge dated 21.10.2024 relates to proceedings scheduled on 19.11.2024. In spite of the lapse of more than one year, it appears that the inquiry has not been concluded.

5. In those circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to proceed with, conclude the inquiry and issue a speaking order within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, Thiru.Rajamanickam and any other persons concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

NCS : Yes/No 10.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY.,J.

apd ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 31896 of 2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top