S.P.Sivasubramaniam v. The District Revenue Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI S.P.Sivasubramaniam ... Petitioner Vs.

1 The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram Collectorate Building, Kancheepuram.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu.

3 The Tahsildar, Thirupporur Taluk, Thirupporur.

... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in e/f.16652/16 vz; 4 dated 11.10.2017 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to issue a revised patta correcting the measurement as 0.40 cents in Survey No.143/3 instead of 0.04 cents as wrongly issued by the third respondent in patta.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.B.S.Sundaramoorthi For Respondents : Mr.S.Balamurugan Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in e/f.16652/16 vz; 4 dated 11.10.2017 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to issue a revised patta correcting the measurement as 0.40 cents in Survey No.143/3 instead of 0.04 cents as wrongly issued by the third respondent in patta.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property in 0.34 cents in Survey No.143/2 and 0.40 cents in Survey No.143/3 at Kolathur Village, Kolathur Panchayat, Thirupporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, however, in respect of the property in Survey No.143/3 the third respondent issued patta mentioning the measurement as 0.04 cents instead of 0.40 cents. Inorder to rectify the mistake, the petitioner filed petition before the second respondent and the second respondent passed order against the petitioner and challenging the same, the 2/4

petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent passed the impugned order confirming the order passed by the second respondent.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this Court, without going into the merits of the case, may grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate remedy and grant further liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation for mutation of revenue records, if the petitioner succeeds in the suit that is to be filed by the petitioner. 4.Considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case and without interfering with the impugned order, grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate remedy. Further liberty is granted to the petitioner to make fresh representation for mutation of revenue records, if the petitioner succeeds in the suit that is to be filed by the petitioner. 5.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. 3/4

16.09.2025 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri To 1 The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram Collectorate Building, Kancheepuram.

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu.

3 The Tahsildar, Thirupporur Taluk, Thirupporur.

4/4

16.09.2025 5/4