Sakthivel v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3866 and 3867 of 2026 Sakthivel ... Petitioner -vs1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

2.Easwara Prasath ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Pa.Mu.A6/5225/2025 dated 20.08.2025, quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent herein and his subordinates to restore the patta for Survey No.3/1, situated at Pattinam Kathan Village, Ramanathapuram District, in the name of the petitioner without any further delay.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For R1 :

Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For R2 :

Mr.B.Mahendrarajan

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 20.08.2025, and consequently, to direct the first respondent herein and his subordinates to restore the patta for Survey No.3/1, situated at Pattinam Kathan Village, Ramanathapuram District, in the name of the petitioner without any further delay.

2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner has raised the grievance that the Patta for land in S.No. 3/1, situated at Pattinam Kathan Village, Ramanathapuram District, which stands in his name, was cancelled by the first respondent based on a representation made by the second respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation was made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which

amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. This submission is not contested by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.

5. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to present his case before it was passed.

6. For the above reason, the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, the second respondent, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, call for objections, and conclude the enquiry after considering the objections raised by them, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes / No (K.SURENDER, J.) Index : Yes / No 19.02.2026 smn2

To:- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

K.SURENDER , J.

smn2 19.02.2026