Madras High Court
T.Karunanithi vs The District Revenue Officer on 11 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.2456 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.2456 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.18917 and 18918 of 2025
T.Karunanithi,
S/o.Thirunavukarasu ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvallur Revenue Division,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvallur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
4.Suyam Prakash,
S/o.Chandraiah ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
12.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.6 of 2023.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 07:29:41 pm )
W.A.No.2456 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.Pranesh Vilvan
For Respondents :
For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Ravichander
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The present Intra-Court Appeal has been instituted challenging the Writ
Order dated 12.03.2025 in W.P.No.6 of 2023.
2. The Writ Petitioner is the Appellant before this Court. The order
passed by the 1st Respondent granting patta in the name of the 4th respondent
came to be challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this
Court considered the issue and gave a finding in Paragraph No.4, which reads
as under:-
“4. O.S.No.879 of 1988 was filed by the father of
the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction and
O.S.No.711 of 1989 was filed by the rival party who was
also seeking permanent injunction, not to grant any
electricity connection to the father of the petitioner. Both
the suits were taken up together and joint trial was
conducted. One of the main issue that was framed by the
trial Court is, as to whether the predecessor-in-title had
the right to convey the property in favour of the
petitioner's father. On appreciation of evidence, the trial
Court came to a conclusion that predecessor-in-title had
no right to convey the property and therefore, no title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 07:29:41 pm )
passed on to the petitioner's father. Accordingly, the suit
filed by the petitioner's father in O.S.No.879 of 1988 was
dismissed and the suit filed by the rival party in
O.S.No.711 of 1989 was allowed. It is also brought to the
notice of this Court that the appeal filed against the said
judgment and decree with delay also came to be
dismissed.”
3. The Writ Petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the
Judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Court are binding on the Revenue
Authorities and the Revenue Authorities cannot disregard the Judgment of the
Civil Court while considering the application seeking Patta, Cancellation of
Patta or to mutate the revenue records.
4. The legal position reiterated by the learned Single Judge of this Court
in the Writ Order impugned is in consonance with the established principles
and this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned.
Consequently, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
11.09.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 07:29:41 pm )
To:
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvallur Revenue Division,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvallur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 07:29:41 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
and
C.M.P.Nos.18917 and 18918 of 2025
11.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 07:29:41 pm )
