The Madras High Court criticised State officials for remaining ex parte in a 2001 case involving government “Natham Poramboke” land, calling it a serious lapse affecting public interest. The Court directed strict guidelines, timelines, and disciplinary action to protect government property in future cases.
The Madras High Court has strongly criticised revenue officials in Tamil Nadu for not properly defending a case involving government land, saying that such negligence directly harms public interest. The Court said that the State, as the guardian of public property, cannot ignore legal disputes concerning government land.
In its order dated February 26, Justice N Senthilkumar made it clear that officials cannot stay silent when valuable public land is under litigation. The Court observed,
“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,”
held the Court.
ALSO READ: Eviction Of SASTRA University From Govt Land: Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order
The case relates to a civil suit filed in 2001 before a local court in Ramanathapuram. The land in question was recorded in revenue records as Government “Natham Poramboke,” meaning that it was classified as government property. The plaintiff had approached the court seeking a declaration of title over the land and a permanent injunction to restrain interference.
The District Collector of Ramanathapuram and the Tahsildar of Rameswaram Taluk were made defendants in the suit. However, despite receiving notice, neither of them appeared before the trial court. As a result, on March 9, 2001, the trial court proceeded ex parte and passed a decree against the government in their absence.
Later, in 2004, the State filed applications before the court seeking to condone a delay of 384 days and to set aside the ex parte decree. Both applications were dismissed on June 14, 2004. The State did not challenge this dismissal before any higher court.
The matter resurfaced in 2026 when two individuals filed a connected civil revision petition before the Madras High Court. During the hearing, the Court impleaded the Principal Secretary to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department to explain what action had been taken against the government officials and law officers who failed to appear in the 2001 suit.
An affidavit was later filed stating that action had been proposed against the Tahsildar concerned and the then Government Pleader. However, the Court noticed that no action had been proposed against the District Collector, who was also a party to the suit and had remained ex parte.
The State attempted to explain that the Tahsildar, being the custodian of records, was responsible for handling the case. The Court rejected this reasoning and made it clear that such an explanation could not justify the Collector’s absence. The Court observed,
“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,”
said the Court.
Taking serious note of the lapse, the High Court directed that disciplinary action be initiated not only against the Tahsildar and the Government Pleader but also against the District Collector.
In a significant step aimed at preventing such negligence in future cases, the Court directed the State government to issue a Government Order laying down clear and detailed guidelines for handling civil cases involving government land. These guidelines must clearly define the duties and responsibilities of Government Pleaders and revenue officials in civil litigation.
The Court also ordered that mandatory procedures be framed for situations where a government official is set ex parte, along with strict timelines for filing written statements, appeals, applications to set aside ex parte orders, and delay condonation petitions.
The Court further directed that there must be consequences, including disciplinary action, if officials fail to perform their duties properly in such matters.
Additionally, the High Court asked the State to consider setting up a dedicated Legal Cell in every Taluk. This Legal Cell would periodically review pending civil cases involving the government and ensure that timely legal steps are taken to protect public property.
The Court gave a strict timeline for compliance and stated,
“The above exercise shall be completed and appropriate Government Orders shall be issued within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,”
the Court said.
The Additional Chief Secretary has also been directed to file a status report within four months. The report must include details of how many cases are pending before the Madurai Bench of the High Court in which the government has remained ex parte and what steps have been taken to correct such lapses.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on March 16, 2026.
Advocates T Sivashree and J Barathan appeared for the revision petitioners. Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan represented the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, the Tahsildar of Rameswaram Taluk, and the Principal Secretary to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, assisted by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) P Thambidurai. Advocate P Jessi Jeeva Priya represented the private respondent.
The judgment sends a strong message that government officials must actively defend cases involving public land and that negligence in such matters will invite accountability and disciplinary action.
Case Title:
Sethumadhavan & Anr v. Sigamani & Ors
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Government Land Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
