BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

G.Sethuraman ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Educational Officer,

Office of the CEO,

Madurai District.

2.The District Educational Officer,

Usilampatti,

Madurai District.

3.The Block Educational Officer,

T.Kalluppatti Union,

Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk,

Madurai District.

5.The Village Administrative Officer,

Chinnachittulotti,

T.Kalluppatti Village,

Madurai District.

6.The District Collector, Madurai.

7.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

(R.6 & R.7 are suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 28.11.2025) ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's detailed representations dated 05.07.2024, after conducting a proper joint survey of Survey Nos. 144/1 and 144/6, Chinnachittulotti Village, T.Kalluppatti Union, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, to identify the extent of the Petitioner's patta land encroached for the Government Middle School, and thereafter pass appropriate orders by either granting compensation for the encroached extent of about 22 cents in S.No.144/1 or, in the alternative, returning the 48 cents earlier donated by the Petitioner's father in S.No.144/6 within a time to be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Prakash For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner's father executed gift deed dated 20.12.2007 (Document No.6 of 2008) in favour of the Education Department for constructing a school. It appears that without conducting proper survey or identifying the gifted site, instead of putting up the construction in the gifted land, the school was built on the adjacent patta land of the writ petitioner's family. This construction appears to have taken place some 5 years back. The writ petitioner's father appears to have passed away quite sometime back. When construction took place, the writ petitioner was in Malaysia. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not aware of the exact location of the construction. The writ petitioner therefore seeks either return of the gifted land or payment of compensation for having taken over the land that was not gifted.

3.I have so for set out the case of the writ petitioner. I cannot render a definite finding that the averments are necessarily correct. This can be found out only by conducting a survey.

4.I direct the fourth respondent to conduct survey and submit a report to the fifth respondent as to whether the school in question had been constructed on the gifted land or on the non-gifted land. If the results of the survey confirm the allegation of the writ petitioner, then the writ petitioner has to be necessarily provided with appropriate remedy. I stop here and I do not mention anything further.

5.The report of the Tahsildar shall be forwarded to the sixth respondent. It is for the sixth respondent to take a call on the writ petitioner's representation thereafter. Since till date, the writ petitioner has not submitted any representation to the sixth respondent, he may do so after the report of the Tahsildar is made available. I grant three months time for the Tahsildar to submit the report. Copy of the report shall be furnished to the writ petitioner also. If the Tahsildar report is in favour of the writ petitioner, the sixth respondent has to dispose of the writ petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order within a period of three months thereafter.

6.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

28.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA To

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the CEO, Madurai District.

2.The District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3.The Block Educational Officer, T.Kalluppatti Union, Madurai