IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN CMP No.22032 of 2025 and WA SR N o .159681 of 2024 T.M.Veeramuthu S/o.Late Mariyappan, No.45-B, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

2. The Commissioner Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Tiruvanamalai, New Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

4. V.Kumarasamy S/o.P.Venkatesan, No.10/1 Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Vellappan Chavadi, Chennai – 600 077.

5. X.Durairaj Managing Director, RajanRajan Electrical Equipments Private Ltd, AIF 4 Industrial Estate, Maraimalar Nagar - 603 209 Respondent(s)

PRAYER in CMP No.22032 of 2025 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 409 days in filing W.A.No.SR159681 of 2024 PRAYER in W.A.No.SR 159681 of 2024: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 4.9.2023 passed by the learned Single Judgge in W.P.No.28169 of 2012.

For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Rajkumar for Mr.R.Ashwanth For Respondent(s):Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for R1 to R3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Long delay of 409 days in filing the appeal is sought to be explained by reasons, which we may say so, are completely an afterthought and baseless.

2. An allegation has been made against the earlier counsel saying that a crucial legal bundle containing important documents was inadvertently misplaced by one of the petitioner’s counsel, who was assisting the process, and despite efforts to locate the missing documents, the counsel could not locate the bundle, which led to further delay in preparation and submission of the paper work. 3. At the first place, neither the name of the counsel has been given, nor an affidavit of such counsel is attached with the present application. All other explanations given in paragraph (5) of the affidavit do not merit consideration.

4. Long delay cannot be allowed to be condoned as a matter of course in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 12025 INSC 1104, wherein it is held as under:

“258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter

which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.”

As the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application do not constitute sufficient cause, the application is dismissed. Consequently, WA SR is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

12.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi To:

1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

2. The Commissioner Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3. The Assistant Set