Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
Subramani – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.385 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Saravanan
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Kannan
A claim for reconveyance is not valid when prior sale to the State exists without government acquisition under relevant law.
Headnote:The appellant challenged the dismissal of W.P(MD)No.22543 of 2025 concerning the reconveyance of property based on a representation. The court found the properties were previously sold to the State, thus, reconveyance was not applicable. The primary issue was whether reconveyance could be claimed without preceding government acquisition. The court concluded there was no merit in the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of dismissal of writ petition on reconveyance claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court found no merit based on existing absolute sale. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. final ruling dismissed the appeal. (Para 6) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.22543 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025, whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal as the appellant.
2.The appellant/writ petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 06.03.2025 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the said representation, the appellant primarily sought reconveyance of the subject property.
3.The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials available on record, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the subject properties were not acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, and that there was an absolute sale executed by the writ petitioner. Hence, the question of reconveyance did not arise. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5.We have also perused the sale deed dated 29.07.1998 executed by the writ petitioner, which clearly evidences an absolute sale in favour of the State. Hence, the question of reconveyance does not arise at all.
6.In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
