The Madras High Court pulled up local revenue authorities for not contesting a case involving government land. The Court said this kind of inaction harms public interest. It stressed that the State must protect public property.
In an order dated February 26, Justice N. Senthilkumar directed the State to start disciplinary proceedings against the concerned revenue officials. The Court also asked the government to build a clear system to handle civil suits related to public land.
“The Government, being the custodian of public land, cannot remain a mute spectator when valuable Government property is the subject matter of litigation. Failure of responsible officers to contest such suits seriously affects public interest,” the Court observed.
Directions to issue Government Order and prescribe timelines
Earlier, the Court had asked the State to explain what steps it took against:
- local officials who failed to appear, and
- government lawyers who were supposed to represent them.
In its latest order, the Court directed the State to issue a Government Order (GO) with clear instructions for revenue officials and government counsel in civil suits involving government property. The framework must include:
- clear duties of Government Pleaders and revenue officials in civil litigation;
- mandatory steps when a government department or officer is set ex parte;
- fixed timelines for:
- filing written statements,
- moving applications to set aside ex parte orders,
- filing appeals, and
- filing delay-condonation petitions; and
- filing written statements,
- consequences (including disciplinary action) for non-compliance.
The Court also asked the State to consider setting up a dedicated Legal Cell in every Taluk. The Cell should review pending civil cases involving government property and ensure timely action.
The Court directed the State to complete this exercise and issue the GO within six months from receiving a copy of the order.
Status report sought; next hearing on March 16, 2026
Justice Senthilkumar also directed the Additional Chief Secretary to file a status report within four months. The report must state:
- how many matters before the Madurai Bench show the government remaining ex parte, and
- what steps the State has taken to fix the issue.
The case will come up next on March 16, 2026.
Background: 2001 suit over “Natham Poramboke” land; ex parte decree against government
The Court passed these directions while dealing with a dispute that began with a civil suit filed in 2001. The suit was filed before a local court in Ramanathapuram. It involved land recorded as Government “Natham Poramboke”.
The plaintiff sought:
- a declaration of title, and
- a permanent injunction against interference.
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, and the Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk were named as defendants. Despite service of notice, they did not appear. The trial court proceeded ex parte and passed a decree against the government on March 9, 2001.
The State later challenged the decree with delay. In 2004, it filed applications to:
- condone a 384-day delay, and
- set aside the ex parte decree.
The trial court dismissed both applications on June 14, 2004. The State did not challenge that dismissal before any higher forum.
2026 revision petition and impleadment of Principal Secretary
In 2026, the High Court heard a connected civil revision petition filed by two individuals. During the proceedings, the Court impleaded the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The Court wanted an explanation about action against law officers/government lawyers who did not appear in the 2001 suit.
An affidavit later stated that the State proposed action against the Tahsildar concerned and the then Government Pleader. However, the Court noted that the State did not propose any action against the District Collector, even though he also remained ex parte.
The State tried to place responsibility on the Tahsildar as custodian of records. The Court rejected that explanation. It said the Collector could not escape responsibility when he was a party to the suit and still stayed absent.
“While such a submission may apply where evidence is actually let in on behalf of the Government, it cannot justify the inaction on the part of the District Collector in a case where he was a party to the suit and remained ex parte,” the Court observed. It also called for disciplinary action against the Collector.
Appearance
Advocates T. Sivashree and J. Barathan appeared for the revision petitioners. Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan appeared for the District Collector, the Tahsildar, and the Principal Secretary. He was assisted by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) P. Thambidurai. Advocate P. Jessi Jeeva Priya appeared for a private respondent.
