THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU vs C NANDAKUMAR

Court
Madras High Court

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR N o.145169 of 2025
1. Government Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary, Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9. and 2 Others
2.The Competent Authority For
Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant
Commissioner of ULT, Poonamallee,
Chennai-56.
3.The Tahsildar,
Maduravoyal Taluk, Maduravoyal,
Chennai-602 102.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. C.Nandakumar
2.C.Alamelu
Respondent(s)
PRAYER in CMP:
Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the
______________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
delay of 609 days in filing the present Writ Appeal against the Order
dated made in
PRAYER IN WA:
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 08.12.2023 passed in WP No.2661 of 2016 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Roshan Atiq,
Addl Govt Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard on the application seeking condonation of delay of 609
days in filing the writ appeal, which assails the order dated
08.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2661 of
2016.
2. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it
is stated that the delay is neither willful nor wanton and occasioned by
a combination of procedural, administrative and circumstantial factors
beyond the appellant's control.
3. The issue relating to condonation of delay is no longer res
integra , and the Supreme Court has settled the legal position through
______________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
a catena of decisions, of which relevant paragraphs of a few decisions
are reproduced hereunder:
(i) In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. V. K. Thangappan and
1
another , the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be
borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise
their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court
may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there
is such negligence or omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction
with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes
prejudice to the opposite party. Even where
fundamental right is involved the matter is still within
the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga
Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports,
(1969) 1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be
exercised judicially and reasonably.”
(ii) Long delay cannot be allowed to be condoned as a matter of course
in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
1
(2006) 4 SCC 322
______________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
2
Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board , wherein it is held as under:
“258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter
which the court must take into consideration while
considering whether the delay should be condoned or
not. From the tenor of the approach of the
respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own
period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for
which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it
is held that a party has lost his right to have the
matter considered on merits because of his own
inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-
deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case,
it cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice
deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the plea for
condonation of delay, the court must not start with the
merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to
first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered
by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the
sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the
opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the
court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for
the purpose of condoning the delay.”
2
2025 INSC 1104
______________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
(iii) In a recent decision in Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran and
3
another , the Supreme Court held thus:
“31. It is a well-settled law that while considering the
plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost
duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of
the explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation rather than starting with the merits of the
main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons
given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of
the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal
footing, the court may consider the merits of the main
matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasised in
several cases that delay should not be condoned
merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of
substantial justice must not come at the cost of
causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present
case, the respondents/defendants have failed to
demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing
the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning
the delay remains unmet.”
4. On analyzing the present case in the light of the decisions of
3
2025 INSC 672
______________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
the Supreme Court, referred supra, we find that the asseverations as
contained in the affidavit do not impel us to consider the same as a
sufficient cause for condoning such inordinate delay. No reasons, much
less valid and cogent reasons, are assigned to condone the delay.
Hence, we see no valid ground to condone the delay of 609 days in
filing the writ appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed.
Consequently, WA SR is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
30.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
______________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
To:
1. The Secretary to Government Of Tamil
Nadu
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9. and 2 Others
2.The Competent Authority For
Urban Land Ceiling and Assistant
Commissioner of ULT, Poonamallee,
Chennai-56.
3.The Tahsildar,
Maduravoyal Taluk, Maduravoyal,
Chennai-602 102.
______________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )

CMP No.24790 of 2026
and WA SR No.145169 of 2025
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sra)
CMP No.24790 of 2026 and
WA SR No.145169 of 2025

30.10.2026
______________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:37:02 am )