K.Ayyammal, vs The Registrar,

Court
Madras High Court

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011514682026}
K.Ayyammal,
W/o.Late Kasi,
No.86,
Sonai Kovil Thoppu,
Arappalayam Main Road,
Madurai - 625016
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar,
Tamilnadu State Information Commission,
No.19. Government Farm House,
Panpet,
(Pension Pay Office Back Side),
Nandhanam,
Chennai- 600035
2. The First Appellate Authority
Revenue And Disaster Management Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600009
3. The Public Information officer
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600009
4. The Public Information officer/ The Personal
Secretary to Collector
Collectorate,
Madurai-625020
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
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 conclude the petition made U/s. 18(1) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 for non-providing, the correct and detailed
information in nutshell to the petitioner for her petition dated 21.12.2024
made U/s.6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 3rd
respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s S.Mohamed Kadhar
For Respondent(s) :Mr.Ananth C. Rajesh – for R1
Mr.S.Sivasubramanian – for R2 to R4
Government Advocate (Civil side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the 1st respondent to conclude the petition made U/s. 18(1) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 for non-providing, the correct and
detailed information in nutshell to the petitioner for her petition dated
21.12.2024 made U/s.6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before
the 3rd respondent within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was allotted the house site patta to the extent of 1 Cent as per
the Government order issued in GO.MS.No.359 (Revenue Department)
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
dated 29-9-2009, in the Arappalayam Main Road, Mel Madurai, Madurai
District, which was converted from burial ground to Natham Paramboke
where the revenue authorities were directed to issue patta to 42 landless
poor who were living therein for more than 60 years. As per the said,
GO.MS.No.359 (Revenue Department) dated 29-9-2009, the revenue
officials ought to have demarcated the allotted land and handed over the
same to the allottees within a year, enabling them to construct their
respective houses. Therefore, the allottees have paid a sum of Rs.80/- to
the Government exchequer to measure the allotted site for constructing
their houses. The demarcation was expected to be done by the revenue
officials, but the same was not done properly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
later, the revenue officials also tried to remove the allottees from the said
locality without putting them on notice, forcibly. Subsequently, the land
was taken over by the Government and handed over to the possession of
Karimedu Police Station. The said act of the revenue officials was
challenged before this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions in
WP(MD)No.781, 333 and 3461 of 2017, in which this Court by order
dated 01.04.2019, directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to carry out the
work of survey, measurement and demarcation of the assigned sites
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said
order. By narrating the said facts, the petitioner had made a
representation to the third respondent on 17.10.2024 with a request to
take action to restore the petitioner's inhabitation to the original position
in the land in question. The same was not seriously taken up by the third
respondent and hence to ascertain the status of his representation, the
petitioner had filed a petition under Section 6(1) of the Right to
Information Act 2005, (herein after referred to the ‘Act’) to the third
respondent on 21-12-2024. Since the same was not attended to, the
petitioner made a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2005 to the
second respondent on 27.01.2025. The petitioner's original petition was
forwarded to the 4th respondent for serving information sought by the
petitioner in his petition dated 21-12-2024, by the PIO/ Government
Secretary in his letter dated 06.02.2025. Upon receipt of the petitioner's
original petition, the 4th respondent failed to act upon the same.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that a second appeal has
been filed by the petitioner before the first respondent on 09.03.2025.
The first respondent took up the petitioner's appeal and issued a letter
dated 26-12-2025 informing the petitioner that the first respondent office
has been directed to issue the information on or before 27.01.2026. Upon
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
receipt of the letter from the first respondent, the petitioner made an
objection by way of letter dated 03.01.2026 with the first respondent.
Therefore, the petitioner made a petition under Section 18(1) of the Right
to Information Act 2005 to the first respondent on 28.01.2026 for non-
providing correct and detailed information in nutshell to him by petition
dated 21.12.2024. The same is kept pending. Hence this petition.
5. The Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 2 to 4, submitted that on 15.12.2025, the 4th respondent had
provided proper information for all the queries raised by the petitioner.
That apart, pending litigation details were also included in the said
information. Even thereafter, without being satisfied by the same, the
petitioner is making application after application, troubling the
respondents.
6. However, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
that the petitioner's application will be considered and appropriate
directions will be issued within a period of 16 weeks.
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
7. In view of the rival submissions, the first respondent is directed
to look into the petition made by the petitioner dated 21-12-2024, pass
appropriate orders within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
pnn
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
To
1. The Registrar
Tamilnadu State Information Commission
No.19. Government Farm House
Panpet (Pension Pay Office Back Side)
Nandhanam, Chennai- 600035
2. The First Appellate Authority
Revenue And Disaster Management Department
Secretariat, Chennai- 600009
3. The Public Information officer
Revenue and Disaster Management Department
Secretariat, Chennai- 600009
4. The Public Information officer/ The Personal Secretary to Collector
Collectorate, Madurai-625020
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )

WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pnn
WP(MD) No. 31123 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:12:23 pm )