Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Surecnder, JJ
R.Sarada – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Principal Secretary To The Goverment, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009. – Respondent
W.P.No.27658 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Karthikeyan
For the Respondents: Mr.T.Arunkumar AGP for R1 to 3 & 5 to 7, Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG Assisted by A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal Standing Counsel for TNHB for R4
The court upheld the principle that restoration of land classification, once altered for public purposes, cannot be mandated by the judiciary, emphasizing public interest and lawful government discretion.
Headnote:(A) The classification of land under revenue laws - The petitioner's request to restore the classification of land as 'Eri Ulvaai' dismissed on grounds of public interest and past developments. The reclassification had been based on the conversion for housing schemes and infrastructure, which was legal and in compliance with the relevant procedures. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Government's power of classification and decision-making - Court held that the High Court cannot direct the Government on reclassification, emphasizing that such assessments are to be conducted by the Government as per established laws. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an adjacent landowner, argued for the reclassification of land in Nolambur Village from a public road back to 'Eri Ulvaai', asserting maintainability of the water body. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land's classification had changed to support significant residential developments and infrastructure, serving broader community interests. (Paras 3-4)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Court could direct the Government to restore the original land classification against established public developments. (Paras 1-4)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that maintaining public order and community welfare outweighs individual claims for land reclassification, and government assessments in such matters are beyond judicial interference unless illegal or arbitrary. (Paras 3-4)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim regarding land classification (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition from the housing board on reclassification (Para 3) |
| 3. court's refusal to grant petition based on public interest (Para 4) |
Prayer: Direction to the 1st Respondent to reinstate the classification of the land admeasuring 7 ares comprised in Sy.No.326/2, situated at Nolambur Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District to its erstwhile classification Eri Ulvaai (Government Puramboke) as contained in the A- Register and as per other old revenue documents and consequently direct the Respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the 4th Respondent bearing Patta No.52 for the above mentioned land, and to remove encroachment made therein.
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Karthikeyan For Respondents: Mr.T.Arunkumar AGP for R1 to 3 & 5 to 7 Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG Assisted by A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapal Standing Counsel for TNHB for R4 *****
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Writ of Mandamus has been instituted, seeking a direction to restore classification of the land admeasuring 7 ares comprised in Sy.No.326/2, situated at Nolambur Village, Maduravoyal Taluk, Chennai District to its erstwhile classification 'Eri Ulvaai' (Government Puramboke) as contained in the A-Register and as per other old revenue documents and consequently direct the Respondents 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 to cancel the patta issued in favour of the 4th Respondent bearing Patta No.52 for the above mentioned land and to remove encroachment made therein.
2. The petitioner is an adjacent owner of the subject property as detailed in the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that land bearing S.No.326/2 was originally classified as ‘Eri Ulvaai’. Revenue Authorities have now converted it as a Public Road. Therefore, original classification is to be restored and water body is to be maintained.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General would oppose, by stating that long before, surrounding lands were acquired for Housing Board project. Housing Board / Requisitioning Body also developed housing scheme in the entire locality. Reclassification of the land was done long before, wherein hundreds of residential houses were constructed and people are residing therein. That apart, a Ring Road has been laid and a portion of S.No.326/2 is falling in the Ring Road and the remaining part falls in the adjacent road.
4. In any event, Housing Board developed housing scheme in the subject property and completed the same long before. At this length of time, acceding to the request of the petitioner to restore the original classification would result in causing inconvenience to people residing in that locality and road users as well as against the public interest. Public interest will prevail over. Considering the fact situation, relief sought for cannot be granted. That apart, High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot direct Government to reclassify the land, which is to be done by Government after making assessment, etc., in the manner known to law.
With the above observations, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
