R. Manoharan v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2264 and 4420 of 2025 R.Manoharan ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Tiruchirappalli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manachannallur Tahsildar Office, Manachannallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
4.C.Mohan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 02.01.2025 with regard to rectify the FMB Sketch in Survey Nos.402/11 and 402/18 as per S.No.219/1 in accordance with the judgment in O.S.No.61 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Punithan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.01.2025, which pertains to the rectification of the FMB Sketch for Survey Nos.402/11 and 402/18 in accordance with Survey No.219/1. The rectification is to be done as per the directions in the judgment passed in O.S.No. 61 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property comprised in Survey No.219/1, situated at Nerkuppai, Pichandarkovil Village, Tiruchirappalli District, was originally partitioned between the petitioner's father and the fourth respondent's father, who are the sons of one Periyannan Pillai, under a registered partition deed dated 13.12.1952. While so, the father of the fourth respondent instituted a suit in O.S.No.61 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, against the petitioner's father, seeking the reliefs
of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The learned Principal District Munsif, Lalgudi, by judgment dated 17.09.2007, decreed the suit and granted the reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner's father preferred an appeal in A.S.(MD)No.16 of 2008 before the Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by judgment dated 28.10.2009, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.223 of 2011 before this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 27.06.2011, partly allowed the second appeal, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction only in respect of the first item of the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit insofar as the relief of mandatory injunction was concerned.
3. The learned counsel further submits that, during the UDR proceedings, Survey Nos.402/11 and 402/18 were erroneously assigned in place of the original Survey No.219/1. The third respondent is presently surveying the schedule property based on the UDR Survey Nos.402/11 and 402/18, which is incorrect
and not in accordance with the extent allotted to the petitioner under the partition and as affirmed by the judgments of the competent Courts. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.01.2025 to the respondents 1 to 3, seeking rectification of the error in the FMB sketch relating to Survey Nos.402/11 and 402/18 by restoring the same to the original Survey No.219/1, in accordance with the judgment in O.S.No.61 of 1997. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the competent authority is the second respondent and that the second respondent would pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
5. 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 02.01.2025, on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the fourth respondent and any
other persons, who may be affected by such decision, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.) Index : Yes / No 27.01.2026 smn2 To:- 1.The District Collector, Collector Office, Tiruchirappalli District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Tiruchirappalli District.
3.The Tahsildar, Manachannallur Tahsildar Office, Manachannallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
K.SURENDER , J.
smn2 27.01.2026