Madras High Court
G.Nagapadmini vs Y.Narasimmaiah on 28 October, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.3212 of 2025
----------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.3212 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.26182 of 2025
G.Nagapadmini ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Y.Narasimmaiah
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruthani,
Thiruvallur District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Pallipattu,
Thiruvallur District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to set aside the final order passed in W.P.No.39207 of 2024 on 06.01.2025 by
this Court and allow the Writ Petition.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 12:20:42 pm )
W.A.No.3212 of 2025
----------------------------
For Appellant : Mr.C.P.Hemkumar,
For M/s.Ganesh and Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.L.Dhamodharan for R1
Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for RR2 to RR5
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted to assail the writ
order dated 06.01.2025 made in W.P.No.39207 of 2024.
2. The appellant herein is not a party in the writ proceedings. By
securing leave of this Court, the present appeal came to be instituted.
3. The 1st respondent Mr.Y.Narasimmaiah filed writ proceeding
challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur dated
14.10.2024 and to quash the same and for a direction to rectify the error crept
in the FMB in describing extent of the property ad-measuring 0.73.0 hectare
comprised in S.No.43/2 and 0.86.5 hectare comprised in S.No.43/3, Nochili
Village, Pallipet Taluk, Tiruvallur District on the basis of report of the Tahsildar,
Pallipattu, Tiruvallur District dated 06.12.2021 and confirmed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Tiruthani, Tiruvallur District by communication dated
18.03.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 12:20:42 pm )
----------------------------
4. The writ Court adjudicated the issues and allowed the Writ Petition
based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Pallipattu, Tiruvallur District.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that without
impleading necessary parties, Writ Petition has been instituted. Already a
dispute between appellant and the 1st respondent exists in fixing the
boundaries and a civil suit has been instituted on the file of Sub-Court,
Tiruttani, which is yet to be numbered. Therefore, the order of the writ Court
passed without hearing the necessary parties is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would oppose by stating
that the 1st respondent is the absolute owner of subject property. Earlier 1 st
respondent filed O.S.No.26 of 2001 and civil Court passed a decree and
judgment in his favour on 19.08.2005. Therefore, 1st respondent is absolute
owner and the claim of the appellant is untenable.
7. This Court is of the considered view that disputed facts relating to
civil rights cannot be adjudicated by the revenue Authorities. In the present
case, the Writ Petition has been instituted without impleading appellant, who is
also claiming right over the subject property. The revenue Authorities can
determine the boundaries if consensus has been arrived between the parties
and if there is no dispute regarding boundary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 12:20:42 pm )
----------------------------
8. In the present case, boundary dispute exists between appellant and
the 1st respondent. That apart, civil suit has been instituted by the appellant.
In the suit filed by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.26 of 2001 neither the
appellant nor his vendor are parties. Therefore, judgment and decree would
not have a binding effect on the appellant.
9. Under these circumstances the revenue Authorities ought to have
relegated the parties to approach competent civil Court to resolve issues. In
view of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act and Rule 4 sub-Rule
4 of the Patta Passbook Rules, revenue Authorities are not empowered to
resolve the dispute relating to civil rights. Thus the writ Court ought not to
have granted such a relief, which would infringe the civil rights of the parties.
Only after resolving the dispute through the competent court of law, the
application is entertainable under the Patta Passbook Act for making
necessary entries, grant patta, cancellation of patta or to mutate the revenue
records as the case may be.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the parties are at
liberty to resolve the dispute through competent civil Court of law and
thereafter file an application before the revenue Authorities for making
necessary entries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 12:20:42 pm )
----------------------------
11. Thus, the order of the writ Court stands set aside and the Writ
Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
28.10.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
To
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruthani,
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Pallipattu,
Thiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 12:20:42 pm )
----------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dsa
28.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 12:20:42 pm )
