Madras High Court
Mariya Peter vs The District Collector on 25 June, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.16879 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
W.P.(MD) No.16879 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12775 of 2025
Mariya Peter ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Illuppur,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Thasildar,
Viralimalai,
Pudukkottai District.
4. A.Vellankanni ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A6/2348/2024
passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 11.04.2025 and
quash the same as illegal and further directing the 3rd respondent to issue
patta in favour of the petition herein.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:13:40 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.16879 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kamesh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the third
respondent informing the petitioner that his application regarding
correction of revenue records pertains to S.No.82/2 in Madhayannaipatti
Village, Aavur Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District would be
considered subsequent to the disposal of the proceeding before the civil
Court in E.P.No.22 of 2024.
2. Heard the arguments of Mr.N.Kamesh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader,
who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is
going to be passed against the 4th respondent, notice to him is dispensed
with.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property with an
extent of 89.5 ares in S.No.82/2 is his ancestral properties. The patta for
the entire extent of property in S.No.82 originally stood in the name of
petitioner's father Pichai @ Arokiyam Udayar. There was a dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:13:40 pm )
between the petitioner and the 4th respondent regarding enjoyment of the
subject property. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit for bare injunction
against 4th respondent in O.S.No.772 of 1992, on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. The said suit was decreed in favour of the
petitioner. Since the decree for permanent injunction was violated by 4th
respondent, the petitioner filed Execution Petition for arrest in E.P.No.22
of 2024 and the same is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner
submitted an application before the 2nd respondent on 05.08.2024,
seeking transfer of patta for the subject property from the name of 4 th
respondent to petitioner. The said representation has not been considered
by the 2nd respondent till date. In the meantime, the third respondent
passed the impugned order informing the petitioner that the request made
by the petitioner regarding mutation of revenue records pertains to S.No.
82/2 will be considered only after disposal of E.P.No.22 of 2024.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner filed an Execution Petition seeking arrest of the 4th respondent,
who violated the civil Court decree. The said proceeding is nothing to do
with the request made by the petitioner seeking transfer of patta.
Therefore, the impugned communication of the third respondent is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:13:40 pm )
sustainable in law.
5. E.P.No.22 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner against the 4th
respondent and others for alleged violation of the civil Court decree for
permanent injunction. The petitioner sought for arrest of the judgment
debtors. The issue involved in the Execution Petition is the alleged
violation of the decree by judgment debtors. The same is nothing to do
with the request made by the petitioner for mutation of revenue records.
No title dispute is involved in execution proceedings. Therefore, the
impugned communication passed by the third respondent that the request
made by the petitioner will be considered only after disposal of E.P.No.
22 of 2024, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The
second respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by
the petitioner on 05.08.2024, seeking transfer of patta, on its own merits
and pass final orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner, 4th respondent and other interested parties.
6. With these directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.06.2025
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:13:40 pm )
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Illuppur,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Thasildar,
Viralimalai,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:13:40 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
vsm
25.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:13:40 pm )
