[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Naganathan vs The District Revenue Officer on 23 February, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
WP(MD).No.13414 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 18.02.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 23.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.13414 of 2025
Naganathan ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Revenue Officer
District Collectorate
Virudhunagar
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District
3.The Thasildar
Aruppukottai Taluk Office
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District
4.The Deputy Thasildar
Aruppukottai Taluk Office
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District
5.Kasthuri ....Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
WP(MD).No.13414 of 2025
the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Ni.Mu.Aa2/40504/2022
dated 04.04.2025 and second respondent vide his proceedings in
No.Pa.Mu.Aa1/8653/2021 dated 30.08.2022 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the first respondent to issue patta in the petitioner's
name in respect of the Survey Nos.40/6B2B and 40/6B2C and consequently
direct the first respondent to subdivide the property in survey No.40/6B2A is
situated at Mandapasalai Revenue Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar
District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Naganathan
Party-in-person
For Respondents :Mr.M.Gangatharan
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
:Mr.S.Louis for R5
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent on 04.04.2025 confirming the order passed by the second
respondent dated 30.08.2022 wherein and whereunder the request of the
petitioner for issuance of patta in respect of Survey No.40/6B2B and
40/6B2C has been rejected. Further the writ petitioner has prayed for a
mandamus to direct the first respondent to subdivide the property in Survey
No.40/6B2A situated at Mandapasalai Revenue Village, Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.According to the petitioner, the properties in Survey Nos.40/6B2A,
40/6B2B and 40/6B2C orginally belonged to one P.A.S.Shanmuga Sundaram
Nadar. As per the case of the petitioner, 10 cents in Survey No.40/6B was
purchased by his father through a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1997. On
the same day, one Geetha had purchased 10 cents from the same survey
number through the sale deed No.1419/1997.
3. It is further contended on the side of the petitioner that in Survey
No.40/6B for an extent of 7 cents was purchased by the petitioner's father
from the said Geetha through a registered sale deed dated 19.09.1999.
Thereafter, patta for an extent of 0.09 ares was mutated in the name of the
petitioner's father for Survey No.40/6B2 in Patta No.1832. It is further
contended by the petitioner that in respect of an extent of 0.09 area in Survey
No.40/6B2, his father has executed a registered settlement deed in his favour
on 15.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner's father's survey number namely
40/6B2 having an extent of 0.00.85 acres and 0.01.53 ares respectively were
subdivided and patta were issued in the name of the petitioner in Patta Nos.
3629 and 3630 respectively. The petitioner further contends that he has put up
building in Survey No.40/6B2B and his house is situated in another Survey
No.40/6B2C and he is paying necessary tax to the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
4.The petitioner further claims that in respect of Survey No.40/6B2A
having an extent of 0.06.62 ares, his father has executed a registered Will in
his favour and in favour of his brother's sons on 17.12.2018. Thereafter, the
petitioner's father is said to have passed away on 29.03.2019. According to
him, after death of his father, the Will has come into force and in respect of
his share, the petitioner had made online application on 22.01.2020 before the
third respondent for issuance of patta. However, the petitioner received a
mobile message on 12.12.2020 that his request has been rejected without
assigning any valid reason.
5.The petitioner had further contended that aggrieved over this
message, he had made a complaint to the District Collector, Virudhunagar on
15.02.2021 for issuance of patta in his name. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is said to have received summon from the second respondent on
24.01.2022 to appear for an enquiry on 17.02.2022. According to him, since
he has not made any application to the second respondent, he had sent a reply
to the second respondent that he had not made any application. However, he
received another summon from the second respondent on 12.07.2022 to
appear for an enquiry on his patta appeal. In the said notice, name of the fifth
respondent was found, whose husband is a Village Administrative Officer. In
view of the said influence, the request was rejected by the second respondent
by way of proceedings dated 30.08.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
6.The petitioner further stated that he had preferred a revision petition
before the first respondent and according to him, the first respondent has also
passed an order on 04.04.2025 rejecting his appeal. Hence, the present writ
petition.
(B).Submissions on either side are as follows:
7.The petitioner who had appeared party-in-person had submitted that
when he had not made any application to the second respondent, it is not
known how the second respondent has chosen to issue summon to him. This
could have happened only due to the interference of the husband of the fifth
respondent who was working as Village Administrative Officer. He was not
provided with proper opportunity either by the first respondent or by the
second respondent in conducting the proceedings.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent had
submitted that the fifth respondent had filed O.S.No.212 of 2023 before the
Sub Court, Aruppukottai in which the writ petitioner is arrayed as the first
defendant. The said suit has been filed for the relief of declaration of title,
recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction with
regard to 'A' schedule property.
9.According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, in the said
suit, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.08.2022 has been
relied upon by the fifth respondent in support of her case. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
counsel had further submitted that the first respondent has disposed of the
appeal only on the ground that the issue is pending before the competent civil
Court, the issue relating to grant of patta in favour of the writ petitioner could
be considered depending upon the outcome of the civil suit. Therefore, the
order impugned in the writ petition may be sustained.
10.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C).Discussion.
11.The writ petitioner herein claims title to an extent of 0.09.0 ares
extent of land in Survey No.40/6B2 in Patta No.1832 on the basis of the
registered Will said to have been executed by the petitioner's father on
17.12.2018. Based upon the said Will, the petitioner has approached the third
respondent seeking patta. The said request has been rejected by the third
respondent on 12.12.2020. According to the petitioner, who is appearing
party-in-person, he has not preferred any appeal to the second respondent
and therefore, the entertainment of the alleged appeal by the second
respondent is at the instance of the fifth respondent. This Court has directed
the production of the original records to find out whether any appeal was
preferred by the writ petitioner before the second respondent. It could be seen
from the records that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the District
Collector with regard to the rejection of the request of patta which has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner has
also preferred an appeal to the RDO. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that he had not preferred any appeal before the second respondent
is not factually correct.
12.The fifth respondent claims title to Survey No.40/6B to an extent of
5 cents on the western side based upon the sale deed in favour of her
father-in-law (P.Pitchai) dated 09.08.1999. According to her, her
father-in-law has executed a settlement deed in favour of her husband on
26.11.2013 which has been settled in her favour by her husband on
06.12.2013. Therefore, it is clear that the fifth respondent also claims title to
Survey No.40/6B.
13.A perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.212 of 2023 on the file of the Sub
Court, Aruppukottai reveals that Survey No.40/6B is shown as suit 'A'
schedule property. As per plaint averments, the first defendant (writ petitioner
herein) has encroached upon the same. The fifth respondent herein had
prayed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory
injunction. Therefore, it is clear that there is a serious title dispute between
the petitioner and the fifth respondent and the same is pending before the
competent civil Court.
14.A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority namely the
first respondent clearly reveals that since the civil suit is pending, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
petitioner has to await for the orders of the civil Court. A perusal of the plaint
reveals that the plaintiff therein ( fifth respondent herein) had relied upon the
order passed by RDO dated 30.08.2022. Therefore, it is clear that the
petitioner has chosen to challenge the order of the second respondent and the
order of the first respondent only to strengthen his case before the civil Court.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the civil
Court shall decide the title dispute between the parties irrespective of the
orders passed in the patta proceedings.
15.In such view of the matter, any order passed by this Court in this
writ petition, which arises out of patta proceedings, is likely to affect the
rights and contention of the parties before the competent civil Court.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is
needless to point out that the competent civil Court should adjudicate upon
the issue without being influenced by any one of the observations by the
revenue officials or by this Court. Based upon the civil Court decree, the
petitioner can approach the revenue officials.
(D).Conclusion:
16.This writ petition stands dismissed with the above said
observations. No costs.
23.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The District Revenue Officer
District Collectorate
Virudhunagar
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District
3.The Thasildar
Aruppukottai Taluk Office
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District
4.The Deputy Thasildar
Aruppukottai Taluk Office
Aruppukottai
Virudhunagar District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
23.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 01:11:52 pm )
