Moorthy v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P.(MD)No.3788 of 2025 Moorthy ... Petitioner vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

4.Sujatha 5.Thilagam 6.Rajalakshmi 7.Sivakumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from making any alteration in the patta changing the petitioner's name until the disposal of the civil suit in O.S.No.217 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil in the light of the order, 1/7

dated 06.02.2013 in W.P(MD)No.7053 of 2006 with respect to the 25 cents (10,900 sq.feet) of land at present 0.10.0 hecs in S.No.507/14 equal to old S.No.507/5A1A3A) (507/5A1A3A2) in Kothankulam Revenue Village in Rajapalayam Taluk in Virudhunagar District. For Petitioner :Mr.F.X.Eugene For R1 to R3 :Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from making any alteration to the patta changing the petitioner's name until the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.217 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil 2.I have heard Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3.

3.The grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that patta stood in the name of the Writ Petitioner and this Court by order, dated 06.02.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.7053 of 2006 had directed that no changes should be 2/7

effected to the patta until a final decision is taken in O.S.No.217 of 2017. Now, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition apprehending that the respondents are attempting to violate the said order of this Court by transferring patta in the name of the respondents 4 to 7. 4.Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate has filed a written instructions of the Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk, in Na.Ka.A6/1309/2025 dated 12.03.2025. It is seen from the written instructions of the Tashildar Rajapalayam, dated 12.03.2025 that patta has been mutated in the names of Dhanalakshmi. Thilagam and Rajalakshmi as early as on 31.07.2006 and on and from the said date, there has been no change effected to the revenue records.

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when patta stood in the name of the petitioner, the fact that the patta now mutated in the name of the private respondents is in clear violation of the orders of this Court. He would also invite my attention to the computer patta, which also reflects the names of the private respondents, Dhanalakshmi, Thilagam and Rajalakshmi.

3/7

6.However, on going through the order of this Court, dated 06.02.2013, I find that even on the date of the said order being passed, the petitioner, who was a Writ Petitioner even in the said Writ Petition, was conscious of the fact that patta had been issued to the respondents 3 to 6 therein, namely, Dhanalakshmi, Tilagam, Rajalakshmi and one Subramanian Raja after deleting the name of the petitioner from the patta. However, despite the contentions put forth by the Writ Petitioner, this Court by 06.02.2013 had only directed the parties to await the decision of the competent civil Court on the question of title and directed that until such decision is rendered by the civil Court, the entries in the revenue records shall be maintained as such and no further mutation should be effected and the same shall abide by the decision of the civil Court.

7.I do not find any violation of the said direction issued by this Court. Even as on the date of disposal of said Writ Petition, patta only stood in the names of the private respondents and not in the name of the petitioner, by then the name of the petitioner had been already deleted 4/7

from the patta. This Court only directed status quo to be be maintained as on 06.02.2013. Admittedly, the patta in the name of the private respondents was changed even prior to the said date, even according to the petitioner, as seen from the paragraph 3 of the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7053 of 2006. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is not germane and in fact baseless. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall strictly abide by the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7053 of 2006 and shall not entertain any alteration or mutation in the revenue records, including patta, unless and until there is a final decision of the Civil Court in O.S.No.217 of. 2007. 8.In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index :Yes / No 19.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr 5/7

To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

6/7

P.B.BALAJI, J.

cmr 19.03.2025 7/7