Madras High Court
A.Ramakrishnan vs The District Collector on 18 September, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
2025:MHC:2243
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)No.25668 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.20101 & 20102 of 2025
A.Ramakrishnan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District
Dindigul .
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Natham Taluk,
Dindigul District.
4.Sagunthala ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
Enquiry Notice issued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
4507/2025/Aa4, dated 11.07.2025 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate
for R1 to R3
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 07:03:39 pm )
ORDER
An inquiry notice issued in July 2025 is the subject matter of challenge in
this writ petition. The main basis of challenge is that patta No.3084 was issued
to the petitioner and that any modification thereto may only be made by the
Tahsildar as per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. Instead
of approaching the Tahsildar, the petitioner states that the 4th respondent
approached the Revenue Divisional Officer.
2.By relying on sub-section (1) of Section 10, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that only the Tahsildar is vested with the authority to make
modification of entries in the patta passbook.
3.He relies upon the judgement of this court in a batch of writ petitions,
wherein the lead petition was W.P(MD)No.262 of 2018, wherein this Court
relied on the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Vishwas
Footwear Company Limited Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram reported in
2011 (5) CTC 1994.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 07:03:39 pm )
4.Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 reads as
under:-
“Where any person claims that any modification is
required in respect of any entry in the patta pass book already
issued under section 3 either by reason of the death of any
person or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by
reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he
shall make an application to the Tahsildar for the modification
of the relevant entries in the patta pass book.”
5.As it is noticeable from the text of subsection (1), the power of
modification may be exercised by the Tahsildar in the following 3
circumstances:-
a)when modification is required by reason of the death of any person; or
b)when modification is required by reason of the transfer of interest in the
land; or
c)when modification is required by reason of any other subsequent
change in circumstances.
6.As is noticeable from the above, the Tahsildar is empowered to modify
the entry in the patta passbook if the pattadar passes away and the name of such
pattadar is required to be substituted by the names of the legal representatives.
The second situation in which modification by the Tahsildar is permissible is if
the pattadhar transfers the property and the transferee or transferor applies for
the substitution of the name of the transferee instead of the name of the earlier
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 07:03:39 pm )
owner. While the 3rd reason mentioned is any other subsequent change in
circumstances, this expression should be construed ejusdem generis with the
earlier reasons for modification. In other words, the phrase “any other
subsequent change of circumstances” should be limited to changes analogous to
those mentioned in the first two limbs of Section 10(1). It should be recognised
that mutation of patta for the two specific reasons mentioned in Section 10(1) is
intended to address subsequent developments, i.e.death or transfer, respectively,
necessitating such change. It is importantly not intended to enable any
modification on the ground that the earlier grant of patta was erroneous for any
reason. If any other interpretation is placed on Section 10(1), the Tahsildar
would be in a position to revisit and change his earlier order. That is clearly
not the object and purpose of Section 10, especially in view of the fact that
Section 12 of the statute provides for an appeal to the prescribed authority,
which is the Revenue Divisional Officer.
7.In this case, patta No.3084 was issued in the name of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent approached the Revenue
Divisional Officer on the ground that she should be joined as a joint pattadhar.
I see no infirmity in the said course of action and no reason to conclude that the
Revenue Divisional Officer lacks authority in this situation.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 07:03:39 pm )
8.For these reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by declining to
interfere but by leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the inquiry and
raise all objections therein. No costs. Consequently, connected writ
miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
18.09.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
RJR
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 07:03:39 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
RJR
To
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District
Dindigul .
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Natham Taluk,
Dindigul District.
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 07:03:39 pm )
