Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Subramaniyan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration – Respondent
WP(MD)No.5241 of 2026 | WMP(MD) No.4384 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Silambarasan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.P.Maharajan

Proper authority must be approached for petitions under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case pertains to the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, specifically Sections 10 and 10(A)(1)(c). Facts of the Case: The petitioner filed a revision before the wrong authority after being aggrieved by the District Collector's order.

Findings of Court:
The court found the revision to be improperly filed and dismissed the petition.

Issues: The court addressed whether the Commissioner was the proper authority for the revision petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Commissioner had correctly returned the papers, as he lacked authority per the established law.

Result: Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. improper authority for revision petition (Para 1)
2. commissioner's authority to reject (Para 2)

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act had wrongly preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration instead of State Government as contemplated under Section 10(A)(1)(c) of the Land Encroachment Act. After sending his revision to a wrong authority on 20.01.2026, he has come to this Court seeking mandamus for disposal of his revision petition within a time bound.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Commissioner of Land Administration, who had received the revision petition, had rightly returned the papers to the writ petitioner stating that he is not the competent authority to consider the revision petition. Since the order has been passed in accordance with law, we find nothing survives in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJSubramaniyan – AppellantVersusThe Commissioner of Land Administration – RespondentWP(MD)No.5241 of 2026 | WMP(MD) No.4384 of 2026

Proper authority must be approached for petitions under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Subramaniyan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Land Administration – Respondent
WP(MD)No.5241 of 2026 | WMP(MD) No.4384 of 2026