official guidance

Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1974

The High Court of Judicature at Madras issued its order in Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1974 on 28 August 1974, dismissing Singarammal's challenge concerning land declared surplus in Nellikuppam Village because she approached the Court after a long delay. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Saidapet, and the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, were the respondents.

Category
Land reforms and ceiling
Effective
1 January 1974
Pages
1
Status
In force
Open the source document The official copy, as published. Opens in a new tab.
Source document Preview loads as you scroll

What the case concerns

Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1974 concerns Singarammal's lands in Nellikuppam Village, Cuddalore Taluk, South Arcot District, which had been declared surplus. Singarammal asked the High Court of Judicature at Madras to call for the relevant records and direct the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Saidapet, to give her an opportunity under Rule 14 and continue the enquiry.

The respondents were:

  • The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Saidapet, Madras.
  • The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras.

What the Court decided

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1974 at the admission stage on 28 August 1974. The Court relied on the petitioner's long delay in approaching it.

The key findings recorded were:

  • The final statement under section 12 of Act 58 of 1961 had been published in March 1973.
  • The petition sought to challenge proceedings that took place before publication of that final statement.
  • The Court held that such a delayed challenge could not be allowed.
  • The writ petition was dismissed.

The order does not decide whether the petitioner should have received an opportunity under Rule 14 on the merits. It dismisses the case solely because of the delay.

Who is affected

Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1974 directly concerns Singarammal and the lands described as surplus in Nellikuppam Village. It also records the roles of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Saidapet, and the Revenue Department of the State of Tamil Nadu in the surplus land proceedings.

For a buyer, owner or professional examining these particular lands, the important point is that the attempt to reopen the proceedings preceding the March 1973 final statement was dismissed. The document does not provide survey numbers, land extent, ownership changes, compensation details or a general change to Tamil Nadu land ceiling law.

This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.

Common questions

Did the High Court cancel the surplus land declaration?

No. The High Court dismissed Singarammal's writ petition and did not cancel the proceedings or the final statement.

Why was Writ Petition No. 2613 of 1974 dismissed?

The High Court dismissed it because Singarammal approached the Court after a long delay. The final statement had already been published in March 1973.

Where were the lands involved in the case?

The lands were in Nellikuppam Village, Cuddalore Taluk, South Arcot District.

Did the Court decide whether Singarammal was entitled to an opportunity under Rule 14?

No. Singarammal requested that opportunity, but the Court dismissed the petition on the sole ground of delay.