Ramasamy v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P(MD)No.6326 of 2026 Ramasamy ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Karur District, Karur.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Karur District.

4. The Tahsildar, Karur Taluk, Karur.

5. The Deputy Tahsildar, Karur Taluk, Karur.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Pa.Mu.Si.1/12662/2025 dated 29.10.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to restore the Natham Patta relating to the petitioner's land in Natham Survey No.1064/25, measuring an extent of 66 sq.meters, situated at L.N.S. 1/6

Village (Thirukampuliyur), Karur Taluk, Karur District, in the petitioner's name. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sukumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to restore the Natham Patta relating to the petitioner's land in Natham Survey No.1064/25, measuring an extent of 66 sq.meters, situated at L.N.S. Village (Thirukampuliyur), Karur Taluk, Karur District, in the petitioner's name.

2. Originally, the land belonged to one Palaniyammal. After her demise, her son, namely Elango @ Elangovan, inherited the property. Subsequently, the said Elango @ Elangovan executed a settlement deed in Document No. 6994 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023 in favour of his daughter, namely Vasantha. The said Vasantha sold the property to the petitioner through a sale deed vide Document No. 9523 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023. Thereafter, the revenue records were mutated and patta was issued in the name of the petitioner. However, as the petitioner's name was not reflected in the computer patta, the petitioner approached the respondents for 2/6

issuance of the same. Through the impugned order, the second respondent rejected the petitione'rs claim. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. In the impugned order, the respondent has stated that the petitioner has not submitted any records to substantiate his right over the property. It is further stated that the land stands in the name of Danapackiam, wife of Murugesan; Sellakili, daughter of Murugesan; Sujatha, daughter of Murugesan; and Danapackiam and Palaniammal, wife of Pasupathy, who are in enjoyment of the property. All of them had appeared at the time of land acquisition proceedings and had given their consent statements. However, as the village accounts were not in their favour, compensation was kept in a joint account. Aggrieved over the same, the original owner preferred appellate proceedings, which ended in favour of Palaniyammal, wife of Pasupathy, and she received the compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the said Palaniyammal was held entitled to the larger extent of land and had received compensation in the land acquisition proceedings, the respondent cannot deny the title of the petitioner's vendor's predecessor. The petitioner has also submitted that about 26 documents have been produced before the respondents. One among them is the document evidencing the amount received by the petitioner's vendor's 3/6

grandmother.

5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed with non-application of mind. Further, it is also seen that it is an admitted fact in the impugned order that the said Elango @ Elangovan was granted "kidtup Njhuhag;gl;lh". Thereafter, he was in enjoyment of the property. The total extent of the property is 0.0066 square metre, out of which 0.0016 square metre was acquired in the land acquisition proceedings and balance land is available. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider all the relevant records stated supra, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass fresh orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes jbr 4/6

To:

1. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Karur District, Karur.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Karur District.

4. The Thasildar, Karur Taluk, Karur.

5. The Deputy Thasildar, Karur Taluk, Karur.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY , J.

jbr ORDER MADE IN DATED : 24.03.2026 6/6