Valarmathi v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 25.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Valarmathi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 604.
2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 604.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division Office, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 601.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kilpenathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai - 605 601.
5.Narayanasamy ... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2025 and to conduct 1/8
an inquiry based on petitioner's representation and to Revoke the Patta wrongly issued vide Patta No.922 in Survey No.349/6 measuring 0.34.50 acres and Patta No.543 (Patta No.574) in Natham Survey No.227/155 measuring 150 sq.metrs in the name of Gurunathan S/o.Narayanasamy and issue a joint patta based on petitioner's online application dated 25.07.2025 in our names i.e., Kengayammal legal heirs. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gangadaran For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2025 and to conduct an inquiry based on petitioner's representation and to Revoke the Patta wrongly issued vide Patta No.922 in Survey No.349/6 measuring 0.34.50 acres and Patta No.543 (Patta No.574) in Natham Survey No.227/155 measuring 150 sq.metrs in the name of Gurunathan S/o.Narayanasamy and issue a joint patta based on petitioner's online application dated 25.07.2025 in our names i.e., Kengayammal legal heirs.
2. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader takes 2/8
notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the land measuring an extent of 150 sq.mtrs, comprised in S.No.227/155 and agricultural land measuring to an extent of 34.50 acres, comprised in S.No.349/6, situated at Vettavalam Village was owned by petitioner's mother's grandfather. After his demise, the said property was partitioned between the legal heirs of petitioner's mother's grandfather viz., Mr.Kuppusamy Pillai (petitioner's mother's father), Kenthru Pillai and Perumal Pillai and got Patta Nos.2399 and 734 for the aforesaid properties. This being so, one Mr.Gurunathan obtained forged patta for the house site comprised in S.No.227/155, to an extent of 150 sq.mt and 450 sq.mt in S.No.227/235. Thereafter, the said forged patta was cancelled and only in regard S.No.227/235, to an extent of 450 sq.mt has been recorded in the name of Mr.Gurumurthy.
3.1. As per the oral partition, the share of Mr.Kuppusamy Pillai i.e., vacant land comprised in S.No.227/155 measuring 50 Sq.mts, an 3/8
extent of 30 cents (1/3 share out of 3 share) has been settled to petitioner's mother. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother purchased 1/3rd share of Perumal Pillai and constructed a house in 2/3rd of and, which was allotted and purchased from Perumal Pillai and become the absolute owner of the property. However, the petitioner's mother was died on 12.11.2016. This being so, the said Gurunathan created forged RTR 621/2014 file and newly created Natham Survey No.227/155B of 150 sq.mts in his name, along with nearby portions of 0.100 sqmts and 0.50 sq.mts. As per RTR 621/2014 dated 05.02.2014, Patta No.543 has been transferred to Patta No.574. As per Patta No.574, he claims that a house site measuring 600 sq.mts (150 sq.mt in S.No.227/155B and 450 sq.m in S.No.227/235) in Vettavalam Village.
Therefore, the petitioner sent a detailed representation dated 10.07.2025 to the respondents to revoke the patta wrongly issued vide Patta No.922 in S.No.349/6 measuring 0.34.50 acres and Patta No.543 (Patta No.574) in Natham Survey No.227/155 measuring 150 Sq.mts in the name of Gurunathan. However, the said representation was not considered. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4/8
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 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2025.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders passed, within a time frame that may be 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 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2025, after giving due notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as fifth respondent and aggrieved persons, if any and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance 5/8
with law, within a period of six 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.
List the case on 24.11.2025 under the caption "For Reporting Compliance".
25.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No vm To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 604.
6/8
2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 604.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division Office, Tiruvannamalai District - 606 601.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kilpenathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai - 605 601.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm 7/8
25.09.2025 8/8