The Madras High Court recently criticised local revenue authorities for failing to contest a dispute over government land, observing that such inaction affects public interest as the State is responsible for safeguarding public property.

In its order dated February 26, Justice N Senthilkumar also directed the State government to frame comprehensive guidelines for handling civil cases involving government land and to ensure accountability of officials and government lawyers in such matters.

“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.

The Court has now directed the State to issue a Government Order setting out clear instructions to revenue officials and government lawyers on handling civil suits against the government.

These directions are to include:

• A detailed outline of the duties and responsibilities of Government Pleaders and revenue officials in civil cases.

• Mandatory steps to be followed if a government official is set ex parte.

• Fixed timelines for filing written statements, applications to set aside ex parte orders, appeals and delay-condonation petitions.

• Consequences, including disciplinary action, for failure to perform these duties.

The Court also directed the State government to consider setting up a dedicated Legal Cell in every Taluk to periodically review pending civil cases involving the State and ensure that timely steps are taken to contest them.

"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.

It further directed the Additional Chief Secretary to the State government to file a status report within four months detailing the number of cases pending before the Madurai Bench of the High Court in which the government has remained ex parte (absent) and the steps taken to address them.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 16, 2026.

The Court passed the order on a civil revision petition filed challenging a 2001 trial court ruling in a property dispute.

The matter was tied to a civil suit filed in 2001 before a local court in Ramanathapuram concerning land classified in revenue records as Government “Natham Poramboke,” meaning land recorded as government property.

The plaintiff had sought a declaration of title (a court ruling recognising ownership) and a permanent injunction to prevent interference with the property.

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, and the Tahsildar of Rameswaram Taluk were named as defendants in the suit. However, neither official appeared before the trial court despite service of notice.

Consequently, on March 9, 2001, the court proceeded ex parte (without hearing the collector or the tashildar) and passed a decree against the government in their absence.

The State officials challenged this ruling before the High Court, albeit belatedly. The Court noted that in 2004, the government filed applications seeking to condone a delay of 384 days in approaching the court and to set aside the ex parte decree.

However, both applications were dismissed on June 14, 2004. The dismissal was not challenged before a higher court.

While hearing the connected revision petition filed in 2026 by two individuals, the High Court earlier impleaded the Principal Secretary to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department.

This was done to seek an explanation from them on the steps taken against the law officers/ government lawyers who failed to appear before the trial court on behalf of the local authorities in the 2001 civil suit.

An affidavit was subsequently filed stating that action had been proposed against the Tahsildar concerned and the then Government Pleader concerned.

However, the Court observed that no action had been proposed against the District Collector, who had also remained ex parte/ absent in the suit.

In its latest order, the Court rejected the State’s explanation that the Tahsildar, being the custodian of records, was responsible for handling the case. It held that such reasoning could not excuse the Collector’s inaction when he was himself a party to the proceedings.

"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.

It has, therefore, ordered that disciplinary action be taken against the Collector as well.

Advocates T Sivashree and J Barathan represented the revision petitioners.

Additional Advocate General Veerakathiravan represented the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, the Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, and the Principal Secretary to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department.

He was assisted by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) P Thambidurai.

Advocate P Jessi Jeeva Priya represented a private respondent.

[Read Order]