Madras High Court
WP(MD)/6152/2018 of M.MANOKARAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTIOR on 14 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018
CNR:{HCMD010826722018}
and
WMP(MD) No.6004 of 2018
M.Manokaran,
S/o.Micheal
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pudhukottai, Pudukottai District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
4. M.V.Muthaiah,
S/o.Muthu Vishwanathan Chettiyar
5. K.Ramachandran,
S/o.K.A.K. Kattappa Chettiyar
6. K.Thirugnanasambantham,
S/o.K.A.K.Kattappa Chettiyar
7. K.Chandra Sekaran,
S/o.K.A.K.Kattappa Chettiyar
8. Anantha Natrajan
9. A.R.Arunachalam,
S/o.Late. P.Arunachala Chettiyar
__________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018
10.R.Palaniappan,
S/o.Late.P.Arunachala Chettiyar
11.R.Devarajan,
S/o.Late. P.Arunachala Chettiyar
12.Seethalakshmi,
W/o.A.K.Natchiappan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in R.T.R.No.36/2015 dated 30.11.2017
on the file of Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to conduct the proper public enquiry under the Rule 5(4) of Tamilnadu Agriculture Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 within the time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.Rajasekar
for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy & Associates
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
Special Government Pleader
for RR1 to 3
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
The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the third respondent in R.T.R.No.36/2015, whereunder the claim of the petitioner to record his tenancy stood rejected. __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the lands in question were being cultivated by the petitioner’s ancestors and that the authorities responsible for conducting a public enquiry failed to record the tenancy in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. He would further submit that without considering the claim of the petitioner in its proper perspective, the third respondent had arbitrarily rejected the claim made by the petitioner, that too without attributing any reason for such rejection. Hence, he prayed this Court to interfere with the impugned order by setting aside the same and remitting the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration.
3. Countering his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 would submit that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the hearing had been conducted on different dates. He would further submit that even though proceedings were not undertaken for conduct of public enquiry for record of tenancy, the same cannot be put against the official respondents, as on an application made by the petitioner for record of tenancy, an order came to be passed and in that regard, he would submit that the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced. __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018
4. He would further submit that the petitioner has not produced any documents whatsoever to substantiate his claim that he is a cultivating tenant. He would also submit that it is an admitted fact that a dispute regarding the tenancy of the agricultural lands arose between the petitioner and his family members. According to the petitioner, he had been granted cultivating rights in respect of the very lands for which he seeks to have his tenancy rights recorded. In such circumstances, the burden lies on the petitioner to establish that he is cultivating the lands in question. However, no revenue records evidencing the use of the lands for agricultural purposes have been produced before the authority. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. Even though the claim of the petitioner was that a public enquiry as required under the Act and the Rules thereunder had not been conducted, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is to be noted that the petitioner could not be said to be prejudiced for non-conducting the public enquiry. Even during a public __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018 enquiry, a person claiming to be a cultivating tenant is required to substantiate his claim by establishing that he is in possession of the land for agricultural purposes, pursuant to a tenancy arrangement between the landowner and himself.
7. In the present case, the petitioner had himself approached the authorities to record his tenancy in the lands belonging to the private respondents, but had failed to produce any documents whatsoever not only as recorded by the third respondent, but also before this Court for this Court to prima facie come to a conclusion that he has been cultivating the lands to accept the claim of the petitioner for remittance. Even for the purpose of remitting the matter to the third respondent for fresh consideration, in the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioner has been cultivating the lands belonging to the private respondents, the petitioner cannot claim the status of a cultivating tenant.
8. Further, reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on a judgment and decree made in O.S.No.113 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Pudukkottai to claim that his ancestors have been cultivating the lands belonging to the private respondents. __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018
9. A perusal of the said judgment, though it records a finding that the first defendant therein was a cultivating tenant, this Court is unable to comprehend the decision that had been rendered for a simple reason that even from the extracts of the written statement filed by the first defendant, it is the claim of the first defendant that the said lands were believed to be lands belonging to the Government, which had been reclaimed by the first defendant therein. This would mean that there has been no agreement of tenancy between the petitioner’s ancestors and the private respondents’ ancestors.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ABR __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018 To
1. The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudhukottai, Pudukottai District.
3. The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District. __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )
WP(MD) No. 6152 of 2018 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. ABR WP(MD) No.6152 of 2018 14-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 12:54:44 pm )