Thangarasu @ Duraisamy v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :25.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) Nos.4700 of 2022 and 13218 of 2024 Thangarasu @ Duraisamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.
3. The Thasildar, Musiri Taluk Office, Musiri, Trichy District.
4. Periyammal ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 27.01.2022 vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa6/13161/2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1 to 3 Respondents to keep the recenue records in respect of in Patta No.769 as the name of the petitioner.
1/6
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondents :Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for R4
O R D E R
The fourth respondent herein had filed a petition before the District Revenue Officer seeking correction of UDR errors in relation to lands in Survey Nos.75/ 5C, 142/2, 144/8, 144/10, 144/11, 144/15 and 158/3. After an inquiry, an order dated 27.01.2022 was issued and the said order is impugned herein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands in the above-mentioned survey numbers are ancestral properties of the petitioner's family and that his father was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of such properties. Upon the death of his father on 03.10.1996, it is stated that the petitioner and his brother Periya Aynan inherited the property as the only legal heir. It is also stated that Patta No. 769 was issued to them and that they have been in possession of the property for a considerable period of time. Since the patta was directed to 2/6
be mutated in favour of the fourth respondent by the impugned order, learned counsel contends that the order calls for interference.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader refutes the above contentions by relying upon the counter-afffidavit dated 15.04.2022 of the respondents. He points out that it is recorded in paragraph 10 of such counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not produce a single document to prove his possession and that it was concluded that the joint patta issued in favour of the petitioner and his brother, Periya Aynan, was on account of the UDR error.
4. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent also echoes the contentions of learned Special Government Pleader and submits that the properties stood in the name of Periammal, wife of Chinna Poovan, in the pre-UDR records and that Patta No.769 was wrongly issued on account of the name of the petitioner's mother being shown as 'Periya Eludhal @ Periammal' fraudulently.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the following findings have been recorded in the operative paragraphs thereof: 3/6
It is noticeable that the recommendation of the Tahsildar, the statement of the fourth respondent, the statement of the Village Administrative Officer and the contentions of the petitioner herein were taken into account before recording these findings. I find no infirmity in the above findings warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4/6
6. In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.10.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.
3. The Thasildar, Musiri Taluk Office, Musiri, Trichy District.
5/6
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN 25.10.2025 6/6