Abishek v. The District Revenue Office

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P(MD)No.7115 of 2026 Abishek ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. The Thasildar, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli District.

4. S.Manikandan

5. Palanniswamy ... 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 pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in OMU.A2/3519/2025 dated 28.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry pertains to UDR entry in Old Survey No.492/A2, New Survey No.662/16 and 662/17 in the name of Legal Heir of Sikka Goundar.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent in proceedings No. OMU.A2/3519/2025 dated 28.05.2025, and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry pertaining to the UDR entry in Old Survey No.492/A2, New Survey Nos.662/16 and 662/17, in the name of the legal heirs of Sikka Goundar.

2. Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3.

3.By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

4. It is an admitted fact that the land comprised in Old Survey No.492/A2 and New Survey Nos.662/16 and 662/17 originally belonged to one Sikka Goundar. After his demise, his legal heirs, namely Perumal Goundar and Poli 2/5

Goundar, became entitled to the property. It is stated that they had orally partitioned the property, which measures a total extent of 1470 sq. ft., each being entitled to 735 sq. ft. However, during the UDR proceedings, the old survey number was sub-divided into Survey Nos.662/16 and 662/17. As per the said partition, Survey No.662/16 ought to have been allotted to Perumal Goundar and Survey No.662/17 to Poli Goundar. However, due to an error, Survey No.662/16 was wrongly allotted in favour of Poli Goundar and Survey No.662/17 was allotted to the fifth respondent, who is a third party to the family.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner sought rectification. Though the Tahsildar, in the impugned order, acknowledged the existence of an error, he directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. In cases of UDR correction, the Tahsildar ought to have forwarded the matter to the District Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority to pass appropriate orders.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application before the concerned District Revenue Officer within a period of four

(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such application, the District Revenue Officer shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 4 and 5, conduct an enquiry after affording an opportunity of 3/5

personal hearing, and thereafter pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks.

7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No 01.04.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am To:

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli District.

3. The Thasildar, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli District.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY , J.

am ORDER MADE IN DATED : 01.04.2026 5/5