Madras High Court
Kaliyaperumal vs The District Collector on 25 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD)No.8483 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.8483 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7672 and 7673 of 2024
Kaliyaperumal ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-The President,
Tribunal for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Thasildar,
Gantharvakottai Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Gantharvakottai Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
5.Banumathi ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.8483 of 2024
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.C6/E-609844/2023 dated
18.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 4 to
ensure re-possession of the petitioner in his house at Door No.160, Yathavar
Street, Kantharva Kottai, Pudukkottai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran
For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.M.Vaikam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For R5 : No Appearance
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3; and the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal side) for the fourth respondent.
2. Despite service of notice on the fifth respondent and the counsel entering
appearance, there is no representation on behalf of the fifth respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 18.12.2023, bearing reference Na.Ka.C6/E-609844/2023 of the first
respondent, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 29.05.2022 of
the second respondent has been dismissed.
4. The petitioner had earlier approached the second respondent under the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. In the proceedings before the second
respondent, the petitioner sought the removal of the fifth respondent from the
property standing in his name in the revenue records (patta).
5. The fifth respondent is stated to be the estranged daughter-in-law of the
petitioner, who is married to the petitioner's son, Ramesh. It appears that the said
Ramesh has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2018
before the Principal Sub Court, Pudukottai. Although a copy of the judgment and
decree has not been produced, it is asserted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the decree remains unchallenged and has not been reversed till
date.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
6. It is further submitted that the property presently in occupation by the
fifth respondent belongs to the petitioner. The second respondent, however, had
concluded that the fifth respondent is entitled to remain in the property as long as
she is not being maintained by her husband, Ramesh.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the conclusion
arrived at by the first respondent that the property stands in the name of the
petitioner's son, is factually incorrect. Prima facie, the conclusion in the
impugned order dated 18.12.2023 appears to be based on an erroneous
appreciation of facts. Unless the patta has been formally transferred in favour of
the petitioner's son, it cannot be presumed that he is the owner of the land.
8. This issue requires detailed reconsideration. Therefore, I am inclined to
set aside the impugned orders of the first and second respondents and remit the
matter back to the second respondent for fresh adjudication, specifically, on the
question of ownership and the status of the patta as of today.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
9. Pending such re-determination, the second respondent shall ensure that
the petitioner and his wife, both senior citizens, are permitted to reside in the
subject property.
10. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with
law.
11. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
NCC : Yes / No 25.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To:-
1.The District Collector,
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-The President,
Tribunal for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Pudukkottai,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Thasildar,
Gantharvakottai Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Gantharvakottai Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
25.08.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 12:47:57 pm )
