Sathan @ Sathappan Poosai v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER Sathan @ Sathappan Poosai ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

3.Rasu 4.Alagar @ Tothan 5.Alagu 6.Chinnu 7.Ramu ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent dated 21.11.2025 in proceedings O.mu.C5/30798/2025, quash the same as the same is arbitrary, ultra vires and consequently, direct the second respondent to conduct an enquiry affording an opportunity of hearing for issuance

of patta in respect of the property comprised in S.No.211/5, Patta No.571, admeasuring 0.64.5 ares, situated at K.Pudupatti Village, Sivagangai District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For R1 and R2 : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.11.2025 and, consequently, to direct the second respondent to conduct an enquiry, after affording an opportunity of hearing, for issuance of patta in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.211/5, Patta No.571, measuring 0.64.5 ares, situated at K. Pudupatti Village, Sivagangai District.

2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents 3 to 7, notice to the respondents 3 to 7 is hereby dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application dated 19.08.2025 to the respondents 1 and 2 seeking deletion of the erroneous entry in the revenue records and restoration of the earlier position. However, without calling upon the petitioner for enquiry, the impugned order came to be passed.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the impugned order does not indicate that the petitioner was put on notice prior to its issuance.

6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 shows that the petitioner was not put on notice before the same was passed. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents 3 to 7, and any other persons who may be affected by such decision, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.) Index : Yes / No 09.01.2026 smn2 To:- 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District.

K.SURENDER , J.

smn2 09.01.2026