The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has pulled up revenue authorities for failing to defend a civil suit that resulted in an ex parte decree over Government land. In a sharply worded order, Justice N. Senthilkumar directed disciplinary proceedings not only against the Tahsildar and Government Pleader but also against the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, who remained absent in the original suit.
The order came in a civil revision petition challenging a 2001 decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns land classified as “Government Natham Poramboke,” meaning land recorded as Government property. A civil suit was filed in 2001 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction over the property.
Read also:- Kerala HC Hears Plea to Drop ‘Kerala’ from Film Title Amid Communal Harmony Concerns
In that suit, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, and the Tahsildar of Rameswaram Taluk were named as defendants. However, both officials failed to appear before the trial court. As a result, the court passed an ex parte decree an order issued when one side does not contest the case on March 9, 2001.
Later attempts to condone a delay of 384 days and set aside the decree were dismissed in 2004. Importantly, the Government did not challenge that dismissal before a higher court.
During the hearing, the State informed the court that steps had been initiated against the Tahsildar and the then Government Pleader. An affidavit from the Additional Chief Secretary outlined internal communications and proposed disciplinary action.
However, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out a glaring omission: no action had been proposed against the District Collector, even though he too had been set ex parte in the suit.
The Additional Advocate General argued that the Tahsildar is the custodian of records and typically represents the Government in such matters. But the court was not convinced.
Justice Senthilkumar observed that selective accountability could not be accepted.
“When the District Collector was also set ex parte along with the Tahsildar, the Government cannot selectively proceed only against the Tahsildar,” the bench noted.
The court stressed that the Government is the custodian of public land.
“The Government cannot remain a mute spectator when valuable Government property is the subject matter of litigation,” the judge observed, adding that such lapses directly affect public interest.
The court also took serious note of the fact that the Government failed to pursue remedies after its applications were dismissed in 2004, calling it a clear lack of diligence in protecting public property.
In its order dated February 26, 2026, the High Court directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the District Collector, Ramanathapuram.
Further, the court ordered the State to issue a comprehensive Government Order laying down:
- Duties and responsibilities of Government Pleaders and Revenue Officials in civil suits,
- Mandatory steps when officials are set ex parte,
- Timelines for filing written statements, appeals, and delay condonation petitions, and
- Disciplinary consequences for failure to act.
The court also asked the Government to consider forming a Legal Cell in every Taluk to monitor civil cases involving Government land. A status report must be filed within four months, and necessary Government Orders are to be issued within six months.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 16, 2026
Case Title:- Sethumadhavan & Another v. Sigamani & Others
Case Number:- CRP (MD) No. 111 of 2026
Date of Order:- 26 February 2026
