Selvam @ Muthusamy v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.Nos.48087 & 48088 of 2025 Selvam @ Muthusamy .....

Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector Office of the Collectorate, Perambalur District.

2.The Sub Collector Office of the Sub Collector, Perambalur District.

3.Rangasamy 4.Kannan .....

Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 06.08.2025 vide br/K/Miz vz;. COLREV/10530/2025-D1 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajakumar For r1 & R2 : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader 1/4

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the first respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Perused the materials available on record.

3.A perusal of the records reveals that the third respondent is none other than the father of the petitioner. While being so, the petitioner failed to maintain the third respondent and as such, the third respondent lodged a complaint under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed dated 03.09.2013 which was already executed in favour of the petitioner vide document No.4971 of 2013. However, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and ordered only maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each payable by the petitioner and the fourth respondent in favour of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent. 2/4

4.The first respondent now permitted the third respondent to maintain and manage the building comprised in Natham Survey No.286/1M, measuring an extent of 00099 sq.mt, known as RMK Tower, situated at Perambalur, since the property stands in the name of the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner and the fourth respondent are not entitled to receive any rent from the said property and cannot claim ownership rights over the same.

5.In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order 06.08.2025 passed by the first respondent. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

12.11.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking Lpp 3/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp To 1.The District Collector Office of the Collectorate, Perambalur District.

2.The Sub Collector Office of the Sub Collector, Perambalur District.

12.11.2025 4/4