Madras High Court
V.Udaya Suriyan vs The District Collector on 26 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.8375 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.8375 of 2025
V.Udaya Suriyan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Kariyapatti,
Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to issue natham patta
and make suitable entries in petitioner's name for the land in S.No.151/1
situated at Nandhikundu village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasan
For R1 & R2 : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya
Government Advocate
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.8375 of 2025
For R3 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for issuance of natham patta.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The petitioner seeks issuance of natham patta based on an application
made as early as on 27.11.2019 subsequent to succeeding in two rounds of
litigation, where the state authorities, including the District Collector were party
defendants. It is seen from the typed set of papers that in the first round of
litigation, the State came up to this Court by way of second appeal where the
state authorities were the appellants. This Court remanded the matter with
directions to identify the suit property with reference to revenue records and
find out the correct survey number where the suit property is situated.
Subsequent to the remand also, the trial Court after appointment of Advocate
Commissioner, decreed the suit in favour of the writ petitioner. Appeal was
preferred by the 3rd defendant, namely the Panchayat in A.S.No.5 of 2016 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
the same was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Aruppukottai on 26.07.2019. It
is significant to note that neither the District Collector, Virudhunagar nor the
Tashildar, Kariapatti who were the 1st and 3rd defendants respectively in the suit
in O.S.No.71 of 1999 chose to prefer any appeal aggrieved by the judgment and
decree, dated 07.11.2008. Therfore, the authorities are bound by the said
judgment in A.S.No.5 of 2016, dated 26.07.2019. Admittedly, the appeallant in
A.S.No.5 of 2016 did not take up the matter by way of second appeal before this
Court.
4. Today, the learned Government advocate would submit that a second
appeal has been preferred along with condonation of delay and second appeal is
pending in SR stage in S.A(MD)SR.No.27237 of 2025. The said appeal has
only been filed yesterday after getting advance notice in this writ petition.
Further, the appeal is only at the instance of the appellant in A.S.No.5 of 2016
who alone challenged the judgement and decree in O.S.No.71 of 1999.
Therefore, I see no impediment for the authorities to grant patta to the petitioner
based on the judgment and decree of the Courts below, which in fact came up to
this Court in the first round of litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
5. The learned Government Advocate would further rely on circular dated
27.08.2024 in R1/7699421/2024 and contend that the Commissioner of Land
Administration would have to approve the issuance of natham patta to the
petitioner as his case falls under category-III. I'm unable to accept the said
submission of the learned Government Advocate. The decree in the suit clearly
reflects the property having been assigned door number and it is also the
specific case of the petitioner that subsequently the house was demolished and
hut has been constructed. Therefore, the authorities cannot press into category-
III or even category-II. The petitioner would be entitled for patta under
category-I, for which no approval or consent is required from the Commissioner
of Land Administration. The petitioner's application is also only in respect of
528 square feet, which is far below the entitlement of 35 cents under the
Natham Settlement Scheme. However, in terms of circular, it is seen that
Revenue Divisional Officer would be the competent authority to grant patta to
the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, directing the
petitioner to make a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai enclosing the earlier application made on 27.11.2019 and also the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
judgment and decree of the Courts below as well as this order. On such request
being made by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue patta to
the petitioner limited to the schedule said out in the decree in O.S.No.71 of
1999. The petitioner shall make an application within a period of two (2) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Revenue Divisional Officer
shall pass orders within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. It is made clear
that this shall be subject to any favourable decision that the 3rd respondent
Panchayat may obtain in second appeal which has been filed along with the
condonation of delay application.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
26.03.2025
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
To:
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Kariyapatti,
Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukkottai,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
P.B.BALAJI, J.
gbg
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/04/2025 02:48:28 pm )
