2025:MHC:2933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment reserved on 26.11.2025 Judgment delivered on 17.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

W.A.No.985 of 2023

and

C.M.P.No.9838 of 2023

S.Tangshree Rao,

No.34, South Boag Road,

T.Nagar,

Chenna9 – 600 017. ... Appellant

Vs.

1. The Special Commissioner,

Commissioner for Land Administration,

Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

2. The Collector,

Collectorate Office, Chennai – 600 001.

3. The Tahsildar,

Puraswalkam Perambur Taluk,

Perambur High Road, Perambur,

Chennai – 600 011 ..Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, 1865 to set aside the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22393 of 2012 and

allow the Appeal filed by the appellant.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Jenasenan For Respondents: Mr.R.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander, Spl.Govt.Pleader

J U D G M E N T

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted to assail the common order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the writ Court. Challenging the very same common order of the writ Court, the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2451 of 2022 has been filed by Mr.V.S.Basu, who is the 4^th respondent in W.P.No.17151 of 2008 and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.4491 of 2020. The said Writ Appeal has been filed against W.P.No.4491 of 2020. The Division Bench of this Court, considered the issue on merits and dismissed the writ appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Taking lead, based on the said judgment of the Division Bench, decided against the very same common writ order which is under challenge in the present writ appeal, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the matter is covered and the present writ appeal is liable to be rejected.

3. The learned counsel for writ appellant would disagree by stating that the grounds raised in the present Writ Appeal is slightly different and therefore, it is to be dealt with independently. It is contended that the appellant is the purchaser of the subject land measuring about 71 cents comprised in S.No.60/4 of Kolathur Village, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, Chennai-600011. An application was submitted on 12.03.1986 by the vendors of the appellant before the Assistant Settlement Officer to issue patta. Patta has been issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer by proceedings dated 23.07.2000 under Section 11A of the Estate Abolition Act, 1948. Since the application seeking patta had been filed before the cut off date as fixed by the Government, the patta granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer is in accordance with the Act and consequently, the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration, reversing the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, is perverse.

4. The learned counsel for appellant would further contend that the property was purchased by him and several alienation prior to his purchase was made and thus, the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General would oppose the above contentions by stating that the documents produced by the appellant are identified as forged documents. The Commissioner of Land Administration conducted a detailed enquiry by affording opportunity to all the parties. During the course of adjudication, the Commissioner of Land Administration found that the documents submitted by the appellants are forged and the land absolutely vested with the Government. The application submitted prior to the cut off date is incorrect and the said representation is a manipulated document.

6. The cut off date, as per G.O.Ms.No.589, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, dated 14.05.1975 was 30.06.1975. The interpretation made on behalf of the appellant that the time to submit the application was extended till 29.07.1987 in G.O.Ms.No.714 is based on misinterpretation. That apart, the issues are covered and all these grounds are adjudicated before the Division Bench in W.A.No.2451/2022 filed ag