Madras High Court
P.Manikandan vs The District Revenue Officer on 4 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.5951 of 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3599 of 2025:
P.Manikandan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Taluk Office,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.P.Ganeshkumar
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
5.R.Rajeshwari
6.R.Saravanababu
7.Dr.R.Jeyalakshmi
8.Dr.Subalakshmi : Respondents
[R4 to R8 are impleaded vide order of this Court dated 04.04.2025 in
W.M.P.(MD)No.3632 of 2025]
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the
respondents herein from in any way transferring patta in favour of
the third parties in respect of the land comprised in S.No.1002/2 of
an extent of 73 cents situated at Kula Vanigarpuram Village,
Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District by considering the
petitioner's representation dated 16.01.2025 within the time
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh,
Government Advocate
W.P.(MD)No.5393 of 2025:
R.Saravana babu : Petitioner
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Melapalayam Division,
Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation,
Tirunelveli.
4.Rajeshwari
5.Jeyalakshmi
6.R.Subhalakshmi
7.P.Manikandan : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.Aa8/1264/2024 dated 09.02.2025 and quash
the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue
revenue patta in the name of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6
and consequently issue Town Survey Patta also within the time frame
fixed by this Court.
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Udayakumar
For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.A.Sivanupandian
For Respondent No.7 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
W.P.(MD)No.7860 of 2025:
R.Saravana babu : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Melapalayam Division,
Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation,
Tirunelveli.
4.Rajeshwari
5.Jeyalakshmi
6.R.Subhalakshmi
7.P.Manikandan : Respondents
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the third
respondent in C5/2989/18 dated 29.05.2018 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue patta / town
survey patta in the name of the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6
in respect of the property in T.S.No.2/2 in Ward – AU, Block 11,
Melapalayam Town, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, within
the time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Udayakumar
For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.A.Sivanupandian
For Respondent No.7 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
COMMON ORDER
These three Writ Petitions being interconnected and also
concerning the same parties to the lis, with the consent of the
learned Counsel on either side, taken up for disposal.
2.The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.3599 of 2025 has been filed
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
issuing any patta pending appeal proceedings filed by the writ
petitioner in unnumbered stage. The second Writ Petition in W.P.
(MD)No.5393 of 2025, has been filed by the writ petitioner, who has
succeeded before the trial Court and he seeks to challenge the order
of the Tahsildar in Na.Ka.No.Aa8/1264/2024, where the Tahsildar
has refused to act on the application of the petitioner to include his
name in the patta pending the appeal petition in W.P.(MD)No.3599
of 2025. The third Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7860 of 2025, has
been filed again by the successful party in O.S.No.131 of 2011,
before the trial Court, challenging the order of the third respondent
directing mutation of the Town Survey Register in the name of the
writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3599 of 2025.
3.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4.Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.5393 & 7860 of
2025, has succeeded in a suit for declaration and injunction, where
the trial Court has upheld the right of the writ petitioner. On the
basis of the said judgment and decree and mutation of patta
according to the writ petitioner in his father's name, the petitioner
has sought for mutation by way of inclusion of his name in the joint
patta. The revenue authorities have declined to act on the request of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
the petitioner and have rejected the application, citing pendency of
the first appeal.
5.Having heard the parties, it is clear that admittedly, the
defendant namely, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3599 of 2025,
aggrieved by the judgment and decree, has preferred an appeal
along with an application to condone the delay of four days.
However, pending the said application for condonation of delay in
filing the first appeal, the father of the petitioner Pitchaiah died and
therefore, further applications were necessitated and there has been
a delay in filing the legal heir applications and therefore,
consequential applications to condone delay in setting aside
abatement have been filed and same are pending before the first
appellate Court.
6.Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3599 of
2025, would submit that the petitioner has a right to move an
application for stay of the judgment and decree of the trial Court in
favour of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.5393 & 7860 of 2025.
However, because of the delay of 4 days and subsequent passing
away of the petitioner's father, the petitioner is unable to move an
application for stay of the judgment and decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
7.Keeping in mind that trial Court, after elaborate trial has
proceeded to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner in W.P.
(MD)Nos.5393 & 7860 of 2025, mere pendency of the appeal cannot
be put against the petitioner, seeking inclusion of his name.
Necessary mutation based on the decree in O.S.No.131 of 2011 shall
be given effect to, subject to the result of the pending appeal. The
said exercise shall be carried out by the Tahsildar, within a period of
four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
However, it is made clear that neither of the parties namely,
petitioners shall take advantage of the respective mutations in the
revenue records and deal with the property, until the appeal is
decided on merits.
8.Considering the fact that the delay is only four days and the
applications for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased
sole appellant are only formal applications, with the consent of the
learned Counsel on either side, all the Miscellaneous Petitions,
excepting the stay application are allowed. The first Appellate Court
shall pass formal orders allowing all these petitions and permitting
the appellants to get impleaded in the appeal as well as carry out
amendments, within two weeks from the date of allowing of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
petitions and on such amendment being carried out, the appellate
court shall formally number the said applications and the same shall
be disposed of, within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, hear the main appeal
and dispose of the same within a period of four [4] months, on
merits. The restraining of alienation shall be subject to the final
decision of the appellate court in the stay application.
9.Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.04.2025
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Office of the District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Palayamkottai Taluk Office,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Melapalayam Division,
Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI., J.
MR
W.P.(MD)Nos.3599, 5393 & 7860 of 2025
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 01:18:45 pm )
