P.Azhagar v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER P.Azhagar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.

2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3.A.Vellaikkannu ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conclude the appeal dated 17.04.2023 of the petitioner in respect of the property in S.Nos.440/16A, 440/17B, 440/19B and 440/20A1 situated at Ramagoundnapatti Village, Viralur Revenue Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sekar For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate Page No. 1 of 5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conclude the petitioner's appeal dated 17.04.2023 in respect of the property comprised in S.Nos. 440/16A, 440/17B, 440/19B and 440/20A1, situated at Ramagoundnapatti Village, Viralur Revenue Village, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District, within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself, dispensing with the notice to the third respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against him.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject property belongs to the petitioner, who inherited the same by way of succession. The names of the petitioner's grandfather and the third respondent's father are identical, namely, Azhaga Gounder. Owing to the said similarity in names, the patta in respect of the petitioner's property was wrongly issued in the name of the third respondent due to a UDR error. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 17.04.2023 before the first Page No. 2 of 5

respondent, who in turn sought for a report from the second respondent. However, no further action has been taken and the said appeal has been pending since 17.04.2023. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's appeal dated 17.04.2023 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed after giving notice to the third respondent by the first respondent within a period of sixteen weeks.

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 first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 17.04.2023 and pass appropriate orders, after giving notice to the third respondent, 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 appeal shall be disposed of after conducting an enquiry. The first respondent is also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the third respondent and any other interested parties who may Page No. 3 of 5

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.] 23.01.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai.

2.The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

Page No. 4 of 5

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 23.01.2026 Page No. 5 of 5