Madras High Court
WP(MD)/29531/2026 of Dayan Manohar Vs The District Collector on 13 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011363062026}
Dayan Manohar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Sivaganga District,
Sivagangai - 630 562.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate,
Sivaganga District,
Sivaganga - 630 562.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Madhakuppatti,
Sivaganga District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 29.01.2026 seeking removal of the “Bhoomi Dhanam” restriction over Sr.No. 47/1, 48/2, 51/2, 56/2 and 57/1 of Melapungudi Village, Sivaganga Taluk and District, within a period to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.M.Mano
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026
For Respondent(s):
Mr.I.Pinaygash
Special Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation to remove the Boomidhan restriction in respect of lands owned by him.
2. It is the claim of the petitioner that the lands were never part of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958 and the Revenue records also stood in the name of the petitioner and others. It is the further case of the petitioner that there has been refusal on the part of the third respondent to refuse registration of document for transfer of the property by claiming that there is Boomidhan restriction in respect of the lands owned by the petitioner. In spite of the specific directions for disposal of the representation made by a citizen, the first respondent has not disposed of the representation, it causes severe prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, he would pray this Court to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same on merits.
3. Countering his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026 petitioner had not placed any records that these lands were classified as Boomidhan lands and is attempting to make fishing expedition. Without even presenting a document before the third respondent, a vague allegation is made against the third respondent as if he his refusing to register the document pointing restriction. He would submit that the third respondent, on instructions, had indicated that the petitioner had never approached the office of the third respondent for registration of the document. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
5. The claim of the petitioner is in respect of S.Nos.47/1, 48/2, 51/2, 56/2 and 57/1 of Melapungudi Village, Sivaganga Taluk, Sivaganga District. The petitioner had earlier approached the revenue authorities for survey of the lands by filing application on 03.03.2025. The said application was taken up by the jurisdictional Firka Surveyor and a report had also been furnished by him in respect of S.Nos.57/1A1, 47/1A2 and 51/2D2. Based upon a survey on 03.06.2025, the revenue patta that had been placed before this Court would also indicate that the petitioner's father had been benefited with the patta in S.Nos.47/1A2, 51/2D1,
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026 51/2D2, 56/23A1, 57/1A1 and 57/1A2. The same would indicate that the survey numbers had been sub-divided further and sub-division numbers have been given. When sub-divisions have been made to the survey numbers indicated in the writ petition and pattas issued in the name of the father of the petitioner, no reasons have been attributed as to why the petitioner seeks to consider his representation in respect of a larger area, which is beyond the patta granted in favour of the petitioner's father.
6. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, except to make a bald allegation that there is refusal to register the document, the petitioner had not even averred as to what document was sought to be registered by the third respondent and when was the document presented with the third respondent.
7. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that registration of a document precedes an online registration and such online registration has also not been placed before this Court.
8. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ABR To
1. The District Collector, Collectorate, Sivaganga District, Sivagangai - 630 562.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga - 630 562.
3. The Sub Registrar, Madhakuppatti, Sivaganga District.
WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. ABR WP(MD) No. 29531 of 2026 13-10-2026