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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Kalaichelvi – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent



##PAGE1##

2026:MHC:433

WA No. 2801 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

WA No. 2801 of 2023

Kalaichelvi

..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector

Erode District.

2. The District Revenue Officer

Erode District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Erode.

4. The Thasildhar

Erode Taluk, Erode District.

5. The Block Development Officer

Modakurichi, Panchayat Union, Erode.

6. Punchai Kala Mangalam Panchayat

Rep by its President, Modakurichi, Panchayat

Union, Erode.

..Respondent(s)

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 06:19:54 pm )

##PAGE2##

WA No. 2801 of 2023

To set aside the order dated 23-02-2022 made in

WP.No.28527/2012 and allow the Writ Appeal and thus render justice.

For Appellant(s): Mr.V.K.Kavin For Mr.M.Premkumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arun Kumar,

Additional Government Pleader For Rr1 To 4.

Mr.D.Gopal

Government Advocate For R5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Under assail is the writ order dated 23.02.2022 in WP.No.28527 of 2012.

2. Writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

3. Uncontroverted facts between the parties would show that husband of the

appellant was an ex-service man and died on 23.09.1995. Petitioner applied for

assignment of Tharisu Land in S.No.531/9 of Punjai Kala Mangalam Village, Erode

Taluk. Land measuring 1.18 acres was assigned in favour of appellant on 25.05.2005

by the Revenue Department. Admittedly, appellant left the Village by stating that she

went for taking medical treatment. For about six years, she was not in the village, nor

the assigned land was under cultivation. During the said period, Village Panchayat

passed a resolution by majority and used the assigned land for digging a pond to cater

the needs of the people residing in the village. There was no objection from the

appellant assignee for about 6 years. In the year 2011, appellant submitted a

representation stating that assigned land was converted as a pond. Therefore, made a

request to assign an alternate land. Tahsildar, Erode given a reply stating that the

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 06:19:54 pm )

##PAGE3##

WA No. 2801 of 2023

assigned land was not cultivated by the appellant for many years and the villagers

under Anna Marumalarchi Scheme dug a pond in the said land for the benefit of the

people of that village. Further, Tahsildar, Erode stated that there is no Government

land available for assignment. The said reply dated 27.05.2011 came to be challenged

in the writ petition.

3. Appellant would mainly contend that assignment order was not cancelled by

following the procedures as contemplated. That apart, assigned land was wrongfully

utilised for digging up a pond by panchayat. Therefore, she is entitled for an alternate

assignment as per her request.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader would oppose by stating that, it is an

assignment granted on condition that the assignee should cultivate the land.

Admittedly, appellant left the village and residing away from the village. After a lapse

of six years, an application was filed seeking alternate land. When the assigned land

was not cultivated and conditions of assignment are violated, appellant has no right to

claim alternate land. He would further submit that not passing any cancellation order

would not confer any right on the appellant to claim an alternate assignment.

5.This Court has considered the arguments as advanced between the parties to the

lis on hand.

6. No doubt, assignment granted must be cancelled by following the procedures

contemplated under the Revenue Standing Orders. In the present case, no such

__________

Page3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 06:19:54 pm )

##PAGE4##

WA No. 2801 of 2023

cancellation order has been passed. Thus, Revenue Authorities have committed a

mistake. However, land was not taken over by the Revenue authority, but the

Panchayat Unio

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