S.Ganesan v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER S.Ganesan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2025 in which seeks to issue patta with regard to the land measuring about 1 Acre and 44 Cents comprised in S.No.277/1B2, 1B1B and 1B1A and another 1 Acre and 44 Cents comprised in S.No.277/1A & C and totally 2 Acres and 88 Cents (corresponding to old S.No.5561/1) Bit 2- K.Vellakulam Village, Kallikudi, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian Page No. 1 of 7
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader *****
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2025 and consequently issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 Acre and 44 Cents comprised in S.Nos.277/1B2, 277/1B1B and 277/1B1A and another extent of 1 Acre and 44 Cents comprised in S.Nos.277/1A and 277/1C, totally measuring 2 Acres and 88 Cents (corresponding to old S.No. 5561/1), situated at Bit-II, K. Vellakulam Village, Kallikudi, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, within a reasonable time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property originally belonged to the petitioner's grandfather and devolved upon the petitioner Page No. 2 of 7
by way of succession. Due to a mistake, certain third parties were included in the patta records maintained by the Revenue Department. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, vide proceedings dated 06.06.2016, cancelled the patta and directed the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, to issue patta in the name of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Patta Nos.1361 and 2742 were issued in favour of the petitioner.
4. While so, one Srinivasan filed a suit in O.S.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, as against the petitioner and other legal heirs. The said suit was later transferred to the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, and re-numbered as O.S.No.44 of 2016. Challenging the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, the said Srinivasan also filed W.P.(MD) No.9064 of 2013, which was disposed of with a direction to work out the remedy in the pending suit. Aggrieved by the same, the said Srinivasan filed W.A.(MD) No.693 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed of with a direction that changes in the patta shall be carried out depending upon the outcome of the trial Court proceedings and that no mutation shall be effected in the revenue records till disposal of the suit. Page No. 3 of 7
5. Subsequently, since the Revenue authorities filed documents as exhibits in the suit supporting the petitioner's claim, the said Srinivasan withdrew the suit. Thereafter, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department has claimed that the subject property belongs to Gurnathamsamy Temple, without any supporting documents. Though the petitioner submitted representations to the respondents seeking issuance of patta in his name, the same has not been considered and disposed of, despite the revenue records standing in favour of the petitioner and having been produced before the civil Court. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the H.R. & C.E. Department has claimed rights over the subject property; and that however, the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the second respondent, after hearing the temple authorities, within a period of sixteen weeks.
Page No. 4 of 7
7. Recording the above submission and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The representation shall be disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The second respondent is also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the temple authorities, the H.R. & C.E. Department and any other interested parties who may be affected by such decision, before passing any order. In the event of any rival claims, the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies before the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. [K.SURENDER, J.] 21.01.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.
Page No. 5 of 7
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam Division, Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai.
Page No. 6 of 7
K.SURENDER , J.
JEN 21.01.2026 Page No. 7 of 7