Madras High Court
K.Nallathambi vs District Collector on 19 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.20355 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.20355 of 2025
K.Nallathambi .. Petitioner
vs
1. District Collector
O/o The District Collector
Namakkal
2. The Sub Registrar
O/o The Sub Registrar
Paramathi, Namakkal District
3. Joint Commissioner
HR & CE Department
Erode
4. The Revenue Tahsildar
O/o Revenue Tahsildar
Paramathi Vellur, Namakkal District
5. The Executive Officer (In charge)
Arulmigu Bagavathi Amman Temple
Punjai Idaiyar Melmugam
Paramathi Vellur, Namakkal
6. The Selection Grade Town Panchayat
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
W.P.No.20355 of 2025
rep by its Administrative Officer
Paramathi Vellur, Namakkal .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings dated 18.02.2025 in
Na.Ka.No.11/2025 passed by 5th respondent and quash the same and further
directing the 4th respondent to issue patta in petitioner's favour with respect
to petitioner's property covered under sale deed Doc.No.525 of 2025 dated
10.02.2025.
For Petitioner :: Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
For Respondents :: Mr.T.M.Rajangam
Government Advocate for
R1, R2, R4 & R6
Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
for R3 & R5
Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate for
R3 & R5
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 18.02.2025 and for a further
direction to the fourth respondent to issue patta in the name of the petitioner
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
with respect to the subject property.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 09.06.2025, the
following order was passed by this Court:-
“Mr.T.M.Rajangam, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on
behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,
learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the
respondents 3 and 5.
2. It is seen from records that the right and title of the petitioner
over the subject property was already considered by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11729 of 2024, based on the
judgment and decree that was passed in O.S.No.18 of 2005 which
were further confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2015 by the Sub
Court, Namakkal. In view of the same, this Court had directed the
2nd respondent herein to register the sale deed and since the
direction was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed by
the petitioner in Contempt Petition No.381 of 2025, wherein this
Court once again directed the Sub Registrar to register the
document and to report compliance by an order dated 07.02.2025.
Pursuant to the same, the document was also registered. When the
petitioner was taking steps to get the revenue records mutated in his
name, the impugned communication is said to have been issued by
the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent stating that the patta should
not be transferred in favour of the petitioner and that the temple is
taking steps to recover the property by initiating proceedings.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
3. On a prima facie consideration of the materials available on
record, it is seen that the title of the petitioner has already been
decided by a competent civil Court and based on the same, orders
were also been passed by this Court. Hence, revenue records must
be mutated, based on the title of the petitioner and the temple
cannot stop the revenue Tahsildar from mutating the revenue
records by issuing a communication. That virtually takes away the
rights of the petitioner which was recognised by a competent civil
Court.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the respondents 3 and 5 seeks for some time to take instructions.
5. Post this writ petition under the caption "for orders" on
19.06.2025.”
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 & 5
submitted that already steps have been taken by the temple to establish their
right over the property before the competent civil Court and hence he seeks
for some more time to file a counter in this regard.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the right and title of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
petitioner over the subject property has already been confirmed by the
competent civil Court. This was recognised by this Court and an earlier
order was passed in W.P.No.11729 of 2024 directing the Sub Registrar to
register the document and report compliance. After the document was
registered, the petitioner was taking steps to get the patta transferred in his
name. At that point of time, the temple, by issuing the impugned
communication dated 18.02.2025, has requested the Tahsildar not to mutate
the revenue records with respect to the said property. It is not known as to
where the Executive Officer derives such a right. If the temple is claiming a
right over the property, it has to be worked out in the manner known to law.
A communication cannot be sent to the revenue authority stopping the
revenue authority from performing his statutory duty.
5. In the instant case, the revenue authority has to necessarily act upon
the civil Court decree and also the sale deed, which has already been
executed in the name of the petitioner and which has been registered
pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. That cannot be stopped by the
H.R. & C.E. Department by simply issuing a communication to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
Tahsildar.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned communication
dated 18.02.2025 issued to the fourth respondent will not bind the fourth
respondent and the fourth respondent is directed to act upon the application
submitted by the petitioner seeking for mutation of the revenue records and
for issuing patta in his name. The same shall be considered in the light of
the civil Court decree and also the sale deed, which has been registered in
the name of the petitioner. Ultimately, if the temple is able to establish their
right in the manner known to law before the competent Court, it is left open
to them to approach the revenue authorities and seek for cancellation of the
patta. Except giving this liberty to the temple, this Court is not inclined to
prevent the petitioner from getting the revenue records mutated in his name.
The fourth respondent shall complete this process within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Consequently, W.M.P.No.22935 of 2025 is closed. No costs.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
Index : yes/no 19.06.2025
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
To
1. The District Collector
O/o The District Collector
Namakkal
2. The Sub Registrar
O/o The Sub Registrar
Paramathi, Namakkal District
3. The Joint Commissioner
HR & CE Department
Erode
4. The Revenue Tahsildar
O/o Revenue Tahsildar
Paramathi Vellur, Namakkal District
5. The Executive Officer (In charge)
Arulmigu Bagavathi Amman Temple
Punjai Idaiyar Melmugam
Paramathi Vellur, Namakkal
6. The Administrative Officer
Selection Grade Town Panchayat
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
Paramathi Vellur, Namakkal
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
ss
19.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:58 pm )
