Ravindra Nair .P v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN P.Ravindran Nair ... Appellant -vs1.The District Revenue Officer Kanniyakumari District 2.The Revenue Divisional Office (Sub Collector) Padmanabapuram Thakklay Kanniyakumari District 3.The Tahsildhar Kiliyur Taluk Kiliyur Kanniyakumari District 4.The District Registrar Marthandam Registering District Marthandam Kanniyakumari District
5.The Sub-Registrar Kollemcode Sub Registrar Office Kollemcode Kanniyakumari District 6.Sathy Devi 7.Chitra Leka ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 21.11.2025, passed in W.P.(MD) No.29142 of 2022, on the file of this Court.
For Appellant :
No appearance For Respondents :
Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.] The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.29142 of 2022 is before this Court by way of this writ appeal challenging the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition.
2. There is no representation for the appellant.
3. The appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.29142 of 2022 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take necessary action to remove the names of the respondents 6 & 7 from the patta passbook No.2755, based on the representation given by him.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts of the case, by an order dated 21.11.2025, had dismissed the writ petition by observing as below:
"4. On examining the orders referred to by learned counsel for the 6th and 7 th respondents, it is evident that suits were filed in relation to the sale deeds relied on by the 6th and 7th respondents and these suits were dismissed. The orders of dismissal have attained finality as on date. On the basis of sale deeds which were challenged unsuccessfully by the petitioner's vendors, the names of the 6th and 7th respondents have been included in patta No.2755. In these circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot delete the said names in exercise of jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act.
Consequently, a mandamus as requested for by the petitioner cannot be issued."
5. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
6. Apparently, a civil dispute between the appellant and the respondents 6 & 7 has led to filing the writ petition and the consequential writ appeal. From the records and the grounds of appeal, it is seen that earlier, a suit in O.S.No.12 of 1987 was filed on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, by the sixth respondent herein against the vendor of the appellant and pursuant to the decree passed in the said suit, the name of the respondents 6 & 7 have been included in the patta passbook. Further, it is seen that the vendor of the appellant had not challenged the decree passed against him in the said suit. That being the case, the subsequent purchaser, who has entered into the shoes of his vendor, cannot file a writ petition by making allegations with regard to the documents relied upon the respondents 6 & 7. Therefore, whatever grievance the appellant is having, the same has to be redressed before the competent Civil Court. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal.
7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. [G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.] 20.01.2026 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No krk To:
1.The District Revenue Officer, Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Office, (Sub Collector), Padmanabapuram, Thakklay, Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Tahsildhar, Kiliyur Taluk, Kiliyur, Kanniyakumari District.
4.The District Registrar, Marthandam Registering District, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District.
5.The Sub-Registrar, Kollemcode Sub Registrar Office, Kollemcode, Kanniyakumari District.
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
krk 20.01.2026