Madras High Court Directs Disciplinary Action Against District Collector For Remaining Ex-Parte In Govt Land Suit

Justice N Senthilkumar remarked that when valuable government property was involved in litigation, the government could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that when responsible officers fail to conduct cases, it would affect the public interest.

“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 said.

The court has also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disatser Management Department, to issue comprehensive Government Order giving clear guidelines for all government pleaders and revenue officials specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits against the state, mandatory steps to be taken when government officials are set ex parte, time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside the ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences in case of dereliction of duty.

The court also directed that the State government could set up a Legal cell in every taluk headed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and monitored by the District Collector, District Revenue Officer, and Revenue Divisional Officer. The court suggested that this legal cell could periodically monitor all the civil suits in which the government is a party and ensure that appropriate steps are taken on time. The court added that periodical reports could be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Administration of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government. The court directed this process to be completed within 6 months.

The court also called for a status report from the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, regarding the number of cases in the Madurai bench of Madras High Court, where the government remained exparte and the steps taken to set aside the exparte order.

The court was hearing a civil revision petition to set aside an ex parte decree passed by the Subordinate court in Ramanathapuram in 2001. The case was with respect to a property classified as Government Natham Poramboke land. The original suit was filed for a declaration of title and possession. Since the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, and the Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, who were defendants in the suit, failed to appear, an ex parte decree was passed against which the present petition was filed.

When the case first came up before the court, it had sought a status report from the District Collector on why the authorities remained ex parte in the suit. The court also suo motu impleaded the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, to explain what actions had been taken against the law officers who were dealing with the case at the relevant point in time and what actions had been taken to set aside the ex parte order.

The court was informed that the Government Pleader and the Tahsildar concerned had been identified, and it had been proposed to take disciplinary action against them. The court, however, noted that there was no reference regarding any action being proposed against the District Collector, who was also a party in the suit and had remained ex parte.

Though the additional advocate general informed the court that the Tahsildar was the custodian of the records and was authorised to adduce evidence on behalf of the Collector, the court noted that such a submission could be justified only when evidence was actually let in. In the present case, the court noted that there was no justification for the inaction on the part of the Collector, for remaining exparte in the suit.

The court also noted that an application for condoning delay was dismissed in 2004, and no challenge had been made against the same. The court remarked that this approach clearly demonstrated a lack of diligence in safeguarding government property.

The court thus directed the Principal Secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Collector.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. T. Sivashree for Mr. J. Barathan,

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Veerakathirava Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P. Thambidurai, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Ms.P. Jessi Jeeva Priya

Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

Case No: CRP(MD). No.111 of 2026