← Library
Madras High CourtWP/14569/2025withdrawn dismissed

P.R. Rangasamy v. The Tahsildar

2026-06-09Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY P.R. Rangasamy S/o.K.R.Ramasamy, 1/ 1956, Salem Main Road, Samiyapuram X Road, Pattukonampatti, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District- 636 905.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Tahsildar Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

2. Aasaithambi S/o.Ramasamy, H. Pudhpatty Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District636 905. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka. No. 3887/ 2024/S1, dated 05.03.2025 and issue patta in the name of the petitioner by virtue of the decree and judgment made in S.A. No. 869/ 2007 dated 31.01.2024 For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S. KUMARA DEVAN For Respondent(s):

Mr.B.Pachaiyappan, Government Counsel for R1 Mr.M.R.Thangavel for R2

Order This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 05.03.2025, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property in S.F.No.3/1B, to the extent of 3.85 acre and S.F.No.3/1C, to the extent of 3.12 acres, from his wife, viz., Mrs.R.Padmapriya and that owning to an internal family dispute, one Mr.Aasaithambi, filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.94/2000, before the District Munsif Court. The said Suit was dismissed on 17.11.2004. Against which, a first appeal was preferred in A.S.No.4/2005, which was also dismissed on 27.10.2006. Challenging the said First Appeal, a Second Appeal was preferred in S.A.No.869/2007 before this Court, which also came to be dismissed on 31.01.2024.

3. The learned counsel contended that upon the confirmation of title in favour of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, the petitioner preferred an application before the 1st respondent, for issuing patta. Since the said application has not been considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37497/2024, wherein this Court has directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application. Pursuant to which, the 1st respondent had conducted an enquiry and passed the

impugned rejection order dated 05.03.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned rejection order is subject to a statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority. He contended that the petitioner, without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy available under the law, has directly approached this Court. He further pointed out that while the petitioner seeks patta for lands situated in Pappambadi Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District, the location has been erroneously described in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.37494/2024, as Pappireddipatti Village. He submitted that if the petitioner is directed to file an statutory appeal with the corrected schedule of property, the appellate authority will consider the same on its own merits.

5. Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In view of the submissions made, and considering the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the competent appellate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With respect to the clerical/typographical error regarding the village name creeping into the earlier

order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 37497/2024 dated 17.12.2024 (erroneously recorded as W.P. No. 37494 of 2024), liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned learned Judge by filing an appropriate clarification/modification petition to rectify the same. Upon obtaining such clarification, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the rectified order along with the statutory appeal before the appellate authority.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, are closed. 09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK To The Tahsildar Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

SK 09-06-2026