Sudalai Muthu.U v. The District Collector

1 W.P.(MD)NO.951 OF 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.951 of 2023 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2023 U.Sudalai Muthu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.

3. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

4. Madasamy

5. Palayamkottai Catholic Marai Mavattam, Rep. by its Procurator, Antonychamy.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent made in Ni.Mu.No.A3/1224/2022 dated 30.12.2022 and quash the same as devoid of merits and consequently restore the name of the petitioner in patta No.958 and 3953 with reference to survey No.156/1 and 180/8 of Rettiyarpatti Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District, without due process of law.

1/5

2 W.P.(MD)NO.951 OF 2023 For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Government Pleader.

For R-5 : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-4 : Mr.J.Barathan, for Mr.G.Vidhyamaheswaran.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. The case on hand pertains to survey No.180/8 at Rettiyarpatti Village in Tirunelveli District. The petitioner had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 11.03.2022 from one Venkatesan and Muthu Kumar. Their names are found in the revenue records. Questioning the same, the fourth respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Likewise, the fifth respondent filed an appeal questioning the petitioner's inclusion in respect of survey No. 156/1. The appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. The petitioner made it clear that the scope of the writ petition can be confined only to survey No.180/8. The fourth respondent 2/5

3 W.P.(MD)NO.951 OF 2023 filed typed set of papers. The revenue record in respect of Rettiyarapatti Village prior to UDR has been enclosed. It clearly mentions the name of one Veerachamy Reddiar. Veerachamy Reddiar had sold the property in favour of Subbaiah Chettiar. Subbaiah Chettiar as well as his wife passed away. The fourth respondent is none other than the son of Subbaiah Chettiar. The fourth respondent has placed materials before me tracing title through the entries in the revenue record. But the petitioner is not able to demonstrate as to how his vendor's name found place in the revenue record were entered in the revenue record in the year 2022. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the fourth respondent.

If the petitioner is still having any grievance, he must necessarily go only before the jurisdictional civil Court. The writ Court cannot interfere. Granting liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.03.

4 W.P.(MD)NO.951 OF 2023 To:

1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli.

3. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

4/5

5 W.P.(MD)NO.951 OF 2023 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

PMU W.P.(MD)No.951 of 2023 19.03.2024 5/5