Gobi @ Pachamuthu v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 08.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Gobi @ Pachamuthu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.
3.The Tahsildar, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District.
4.Ganesan 5.Pachamuthu 6.Ramasamy ... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the error in the revenue records with regard to the extent of the subject 1/7
property measuring 0.84 Acre comprised in S.No.12/1A, Koligoundanpalayam Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District and issue separate patta to the respective owners in the subject property by considering the petitioner's representations dated 02.10.2024 and 30.05.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.T.Vishnu For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to rectify the error in the revenue records with regard to the extent of the subject property measuring 0.84 Acre comprised in S.No.12/1A, Koligoundanpalayam Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District and issue separate patta to the respective owners in the subject property by considering the petitioner's representations dated 02.10.2024 and 30.05.2025.
2. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission 2/7
stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject matter property measuring a total extent of 1.64 acres comprised in S.No.12/1, Kaligoundanpalayam Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District were owned by one Karuppa Nadar and Kandasamy, who were entitled to half share each. Thereafter, the said Karuppa Nadar sold his half share i.e., 0.84 Acre to the fathers of respondents 4 to 6. Subsequently, the another owner viz., Kandasamy sold his half share of 0.84 Acre to petitioner's grandfather. After his demise, the said extent of 0.84 Acre were partitioned between the petitioner's father and his paternal uncle. After their demise, the petitioner has purchased the entire extent of 0.84 Acre. This being so, out of 0.84 Acre, the petitioner had settled an extent of 0.41 Acre in favour of his wife and sold an extent of 0.21 Acre to one Sathyapriya. Presently, the petitioner owns an extent of 0.22 Acre in the subject property.
3.1. In view of the above, the respondents 1 to 3 have issued patta No.656 in respect of S.No.12/1A, which belongs to the petitioner and 3/7
also issued patta Nos.588 and 477 to the respondents 4 to 6, for the properties comprised in S.No.12/1B and 1C, respectively. Later, the petitioner came to know that in the revenue records, the extent in patta No.656, issued in respect of S.No.12/1A was wrongly mentioned as 31 Ares (0.77 Acre), instead of 0.84 Acre. Thus, the petitioner sent representations dated 02.10.2024 and 30.05.2025 to the respondents 1 & 2, seeking rectification of error in the revenue records and to issue separate patta to the respective owners of the subject property. However, the said representations were not considered, as on date. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. Though many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 02.10.2024 & 30.05.2025.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the representations of the petitioner would be considered and orders passed within a time frame that may be 4/7
fixed by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 02.10.2024 and 30.05.2025, after giving due notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 and aggrieved persons, if any, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
5/7
List this case on 13.10.2025 under the caption "For Reporting Compliance".
08.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vm To 1.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Salem District, Salem.
3.The Tahsildar, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm 6/7
08.09.2025 7/7