Madras High CourtWP/20384/2026dismissed

P.V.Muniapan, v. The District Revenue Officer,

2026-06-10Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NO. 21886 OF 2026 P.V.Muniapan, S/o.Venkataraman, No.69, Kallavi village, Soolagiri Pot, Uthangarai Taluk Krishangiri District 635 304.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Dharmapuri,Dharmapuri District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Dharmapuri,Dharmapuri District.

3. G.Madesh, S/o.Ganesan, Kallavi Village, Soolagiri Post, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishangiri District 635 304.

4. K.Raja, S/o.Kandasamy, Kallavi Village, Soolagiri Post, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishangiri District.635 304 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order in Ni.Mu.No.15029 /2023 / Tha 2 dated 11/08/2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to cancel the illegal Pattas issued in the name of the 3rd Respondent in patta No.1669 and 4th Respondent in Patta No.1869 and further direct the 2nd Respondent to issue patta in favor of the petitioner by vide the judgement

delivered in W.A.No.624 of 1998 dated 22/01/1991 by the Honorable High Court, Madras, and also a judgment delivered in C.A.Nos.6741, 6742 and 6743 of 2012 dated 20/09/2012 by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, within the time frame fixed by this Honorable Court.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Arokia Mani Raj For Respondent(s):

Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, Govt's counsel, for R1 and R2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the 1st respondent.

2. Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.

3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the subject land was assigned to the petitioner's grandfather. After the demise of his grandfather, the 3rd and 4th respondents had fraudulently transferred the said subject property in their favour. Subsequently, the patta was

also issued in the name of 4th respondent in Patta No.1869 and in the name of the 3rd respondent's mother in Patta No.1669.

5. Further, he would submit that the subject property is Adi-Dravidar (AD) land, which was allotted to the petitioner's grandfather and there is no violation of conditions on the part of the petitioner till date. Hence, an application was filed for restoring the said subject land in the name of the petitioner. However, without any proper consideration, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent. Hence, this petition.

6. In reply, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that in this case, no documentary evidence was produced before the respondents to substantiate the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner's grandfather. Hence, based on the available documents, viz., patta issued in the name of 3rd respondent's mother and 4th respondent, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, according to the petitioner, the subject land, which is AD land, was originally allotted to the petitioner's grandfather. However, after the demise of his grandfather, the said property was fraudulently transferred to and in favour of the 3rd & 4th respondents. Thereafter, inadvertently, the patta, pertaining to the said subject property was also issued in the name of 4th respondent in Patta No.1869 and in the name of the 3rd respondent's mother in Patta No.1669. Hence, an application was filed to restore the said land in the name of the petitioner, however, the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11.08.2025.

9. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that no documentary evidence was produced before the respondents to substantiate the allotment of the subject land in favour of the petitioner's grandfather.

10. Normally, an application has to be filed along with all the relevant documents. In such case, the petitioner is supposed to have filed the assignment deed executed in favour of his grandfather and all the other documentary evidences to substantiate the aspect that till date, there is no violation of conditions, which was imposed at the time of allotment, on the part of the petitioner. However, no such documents were produced by the petitioner at the time of filing the application. Hence, in the absence of said documentary evidences, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents.

11. Even assuming that the assignment is made in favour of the petitioner's grandfather, the subject land was abandoned since the year 2008. The said aspect was admitted by the petitioner. Such abandoning on the part of the petitioner would clearly amount to violation of terms and conditions of the assignment. In such case, the subject land would have lost its character as "AD land" and subsequently, it would have fall under the category of "Government land".

12. Even now, the petitioner is not in a position to provide any documentary evidences to substantiate his case. When such being the case, there is no illegality or error on the part of the respondents in the decision making process of the respondents and hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent.

13. For all the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa

1. The District Revenue Officer, Office of the Collectorate, Dharmapuri,Dharmapuri District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Dharmapuri,Dharmapuri District.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

nsa AND WMP NO. 21886 OF 2026 10-06-2026