Sathish Kumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER Sathish Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi,Trichy District.

2.The Tahsildar, Lalgudi Taluk Office, Trichy District.

3.Krishnakumar ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to cancel the Patta No.1268 issued in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.598/4 measuring an extent of 2 Acres situated at Thappai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District based on forged Document i.e. Document No.1710/2009 dated 12.7.2009 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 19.8.2024 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameelarasu Page No. 1 of 6

For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to cancel Patta No.1268 issued in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.598/4, measuring an extent of 2 acres, situated at Thappai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District, on the ground that it was issued on the basis of a forged document, namely, Document No.1710/2009 dated 12.07.2009, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2024, within a time to be 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 petitioner's mother is the owner of the subject property and inherited the same by way of Page No. 2 of 6

succession. During her lifetime, she had leased out the property to one Duraisamy for cultivation.

4. However, when the petitioner's mother intended to alienate the property, the petitioner and his mother came to know that in respect of the subject property, a sale deed had been executed in favour of the fourth respondent and one Abdul Kabur by impersonation, namely, Document No.1710/2009 dated 12.06.2009, based on which patta was granted in their favour.

5. The petitioner submitted a petition to the first respondent, who forwarded the same to the second respondent for conducting an enquiry and submitting a report. The second respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report confirming that a forged document had been registered. On receipt of the said report, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 11.07.2025, directed the petitioner to initiate appropriate action for cancellation of the forged sale deed on the ground that there was a double entry of sale deed, but did not cancel the patta issued on the basis of the forged document, despite the enquiry report confirming the same. The said action is illegal.

Page No. 3 of 6

6. The petitioner had already submitted a representation dated 19.08.2024 seeking cancellation of the patta. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present Writ Petition.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2024 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks.

8. 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 representation dated 19.08.2024 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is also directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondent and any other interested parties who may be affected by such Page No. 4 of 6

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.] 06.02.2026 JEN Index : Yes / No To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi,Trichy District.

2.The Tahsildar, Lalgudi Taluk Office, Trichy District.

Page No. 5 of 6

K.SURENDER , J.

JEN 06.02.2026 Page No. 6 of 6