Perumal v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi.

3. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli.

4. Kumar ... Respondents Prayer :- 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 of the first respondent Na.Ka.Kaa/Ci.Ma.No. 05/2021 dated 05.08.2024 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore the petitioner name in the joint Patta No. 945 in respect of S.No. 1180/8.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subbiah

For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader for R1-3

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of patta in respect of the property situated in Survey No.1180/8, situated at Irukanthurai Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents 1to 3. Since no adverse order is passed against the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

3. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. It is seen from the typed set of papers in respect of the very same property that the petitioner and his sister filed a suit for partition in O.S.No. 169 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor. The said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and his sister filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2013, on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor and the same was also dismissed for default. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner over the subject property was already negatived by the civil Court. It is also seen that the subject property has been shown as item No.6 in the 3rd schedule in the plaint in O.S.No.169 of 2006. The first respondent revisional authority rightly held that after dismissal of the suit, the petitioner was not entitled to move the revenue authority seeking issuance of patta and dismissed the request made by the petitioner. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

06.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No LS

S.SOUNTHAR ,J LS To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi.

3. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli.

W.P.(MD)No.15375 of 2025 Dated: 06.06.2025