Madras High Court
Stalin vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.5897 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.5897 of 2024
and W.M.P.(MD)No.5547 of 2024
Stalin ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thisayanvilai,
Tirunelveli District.
4.Ranjitha Pushpam
5.Thavamani
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5897 of 2024
6.Selvajothi
7.Stella
8.Jessy
9.Edison ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed
by the 1st respondent by his proceedings in Pa.Mu.Ka.2/U.D.R.33/2022 dated
16.02.2024 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed for R4 to R9
ORDER
This Writ Petition challenges the order of the first respondent in his
proceedings in Pa.Mu.Ka.2/U.D.R.33/2022 dated 16.02.2024. By the said
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
proceedings, he directed the inclusion of names of respondents 4 to 9 in the
revenue records with respect to Survey No.427/1C.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his wife's ancestors viz., Vel Nadar and
Ponnusamy Nadar have purchased the property in the year 1957. They were
benefited with the patta by the revenue department. The extent under their
holding is around 8 acres and 84 cents. Subsequently, in a partition between said
Vel Nadar and Ponnusamy Nadar, the properties were allotted to Ponnusamy
Nadar. Ponnusamy Nadar passed away leaving behind his wife, Gnanamani
Ammal, daughters, Thilagamalar, Selvamalar and sons, Padmakumar and
Selvakumar as his legal heirs. The other legal heirs of Ponnusamy Nadar set
forth above executed a release deed in favour of Thilagamalar. Thilagamalar
passed away on 25.05.2017, leaving behind the petitioner and son, Arun Pandian
and daughter, Ajitha as her legal heirs.
3. After the demise of Thilagamalar, her legal heirs approached the
revenue authorities and obtained a patta in their names. The respondent Nos.4 to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
9 have no right, title or interest over the property. The Writ Petitioner pleads
that without any right, the husband of the 4th respondent, one, Kovilpitchai had
given a petition to include his name in the patta. According to Kovilpitchai, he
had obtained title to the property, by virtue of previous document, executed in
the name of his father Dhavamani. Pending the proceedings, Kovilpitchai passed
away and his legal heirs continued the proceedings.
4. By the impugned order, the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli
directed the inclusion of the name of legal heirs of Kovilpitchai in patta No.963
in Survey No.427/1C. The authority concluded that during the UDR
proceedings, his name had been left out and therefore, he is entitled to be
brought on record in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Writ Petition.
5. I heard Mr.V.Sasikumar, for the petitioner, Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned
Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.B.N.Raja Mohamed,
for respondents 4 to 9.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
6. Mr.V.Sasikumar, relying upon the judgment in C.Sabesan Chettiar
(Deceased) and Others Vs. District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and Others
reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 232 urges that where a disputed question of title arise,
the appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the jurisdictional civil
Court and not the revenue authorities. He states that the DRO has no
jurisdiction to deal with the question of title and the impugned order has been
passed by the authority arrogating himself the power of civil Court.
7. Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
respondents 1 to 3 supports the impugned order stating that whatever mistakes
had crept into the records have been rectified by the impugned order and
therefore, no interference is necessary.
8. Mr.B.N.Raja Mohammed, pleads that Kovilpitchai's father had obtained
the property by way of a registered document and it was the mistake of the
revenue authorities in leaving out his name while updating the records. He
states that this position has been rectified by the impugned order and therefore, it
does not require any interference.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
gone through the records.
10. It is too well settled position of law, but nonetheless, I have to reiterate
where a dispute regarding title arises, the revenue Department cannot declare the
right, title or interest of a person. By virtue of inclusion of name of the persons
in the revenue records like patta, chitta or adangal, no right is created in favour
of a party. It helps only one entity ie., the revenue department, which can call
upon the person, whose name is found in the records, to pay the government
rightful dues.
11. The Writ petitioner pleads that the entire extent of 8 acres and 84 cents
belongs to him by virtue of a sale deed and subsequently, partition deed entered
between the predecessors under the sale deed.
12. Per contra, respondents 4 to 9 plead that they too are strengthened by a
sale deed under which, they get title to the property. This throws up a disputed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
question of title. One denies the right of the other over the property. This issue
has to be properly addressed by the jurisdictional civil Court. Hence, I pass the
following order:
(i) The petitioner or respondents 4 to 9 are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional civil Court and seek for appropriate
relief including that of title together with injunction or recovery
of possession;
(ii) Before the civil Court, the orders passed by the
revenue authorities cannot be utilized by either party to stake the
claim for the property or assert the title; and
(iii) The civil Court will decide the issue of title
independent of the revenue records.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
13. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
vsm
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thisayanvilai,
Tirunelveli District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
vsm
07.03.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
