Shanmugam .Km v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A.(MD)No.854 of 2025 and Caveat No.522 of 2025 and CMP(MD)No.5675 of 2025 K.M.Shanmugam ... Appellant Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai.

3.Durai Krishnaraj ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent to set aside the order in WP(MD)No.11931 of 2024 dated 03.03.2025. For Appellant : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.N.Sathish Kumar, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.Mayil Vahana Rajendran for R2 1/5

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side. 2.The appellant herein filed WP(MD)No.11931 of 2024 challenging the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Pudhukottai mutating the revenue record to the prejudice of the appellant. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.03.2025. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the order dated 04.04.2024 was passed without properly putting the appellant on notice and that there has been a serious violation of principles of natural justice.

4.We find some force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. But then, we are not able to grant relief 2/5

because the appellant has not been able to substantiate his claim. It is not in dispute that the petition mentioned property originally stood in the name of Mr.P.S.S.Somasundaram Chettiyar. Admittedly, there is no registered sale deed in the name of the appellant's father. The appellant's name was entered in the revenue record only in the year 2012. It is seen that the appellant's father was working as a Manager appointed by Mr.P.S.S.Somasundaram Chettiar for taking care of the affairs of the petrol bunk owned by him. We repeatedly queried on what basis the appellant's name was entered in the revenue record. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was some sale agreement between the parties. It is well settled that a sale agreement by itself will not confer any right or interest. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the purchase of the petition mentioned property by the appellant's father. The District Revenue Officer, Pudhukottai has rightly restored the original position. The learned Single Judge rightly did not interfere with the said order.

3/5

5.We find no merit in this writ appeal. It stands dismissed. Connected miscellaneous applications are closed. No costs. (G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 13.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No SKM To:

1.The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai.

4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

SKM W.A.(MD)No.854 of 2025 and Caveat No.522 of 2025 13.06.2025 5/5