WP/37634/2026 of M/s.Clean Max Galaxy Private Limited Vs REVENUE INSPECTOR on 21 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

(Common Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.) The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, the second respondent herein, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the cases would submit that the second respondent passed the impugned order without applying his independent mind. According to him, the second respondent has specifically referred to the telephonic instructions/directions issued by the third respondent and has passed the impugned order under the influence of the third respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.

2.1. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the second respondent ought to have independently considered the matter and passed orders in accordance with law. Even assuming that general instructions had been issued by the third respondent, the second respondent was required to independently apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Having failed to do so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the District Collector, in the usual course of administration, issues general instructions to the subordinate authorities and that no specific direction was issued to the second respondent to decide the matter in any particular manner. It is therefore submitted that the second respondent had independently considered the matter and passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the present writ petitions are not maintainable.

4. We have heard both sides and perused the records.

5. Admittedly, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act and thereafter passed the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act.

6. On a reading of the impugned order passed by the second respondent, it is evident that the second respondent has referred to the telephonic directions allegedly given by the third respondent for deciding the issue. Though the order has been passed purportedly under Section 6 of the Act, the second respondent has not independently considered or dealt with the issues involved in the matter. The order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.

7. Though the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Act, the impugned order itself refers to the directions allegedly issued by the Appellate Authority, namely, the District Collector. If the third respondent/District Collector, in his capacity as the Appellate Authority, had issued any specific directions to the second respondent, the same ought not to have influenced the independent consideration of the matter by the second respondent. The second respondent was required to independently consider the issue and pass orders in accordance with law.

8. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained, as the second respondent has failed to independently apply his mind to the issues involved in the matter.

9. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent/Tahsildar are hereby set aside and these matters are remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner in all cases, conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, afford due opportunity to all concerned, and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. While doing so, the second respondent shall not be influenced by any of the observations contained in the earlier impugned order or by any observations made by this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (P.V.,J.) (GK.M.,J.) 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PAM

To

1. The Revenue Inspector Palayur Division, Perugavazhnthan Village, Muthupet Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

2. The Tahsildar Muthupet Taluk Office, Muthupet, Tiruvarur District.

3. The District Collector Office of the District Collector, Tiruvarur.

4. The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-05.

P.VELMURUGAN, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. PAM W.P.Nos.37634, 37640, 37643 & 37662 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.42267, 42268, 42272, 42273, 42274, 42275, 42294 & 42296 of 2026 21-09-2026