M.Chinnaiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M.Chinnaiah ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sanaarpatti Register Office, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.The District Registrar, Dindigul.

... Respondents [R4 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court dated 08.04.2026] Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to fix Government Guideline Value in respect of the Landed Property Page No. 1 of 5

Comprised in Survey No.153/1 an extent of 15 Ares situated at Koovannoothu Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District by considering petitioner's representation dated on 18.03.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Harish For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezhian Government Advocate *****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus directing the third respondent to fix the guideline value in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.153/1, measuring an extent of 15 Ares, situated at Koovannoothu Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.03.2026.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the said property belongs to him. However, it was wrongly classified in the revenue records as "Arasu Nilangal Ithara Poramboke - A.D. Condition Patta (Adi Dravidar)". Under such classification, no guideline value was fixed.

3. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P. (MD) No.27997 of 2024 and by order dated 24.03.2025, the revenue Page No. 2 of 5

authorities were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent considered the petitioner's application and upon examining the relevant records, directed that the classification of the property be changed from "Arasu Poramboke" to "Ryotwari Punjai". Further, the entry in the remarks column, wherein "Adi Dravidar Natham" was mentioned, was directed to be deleted and substituted with the pattadhar's name, namely, Patta No.1060 Ramasamy Naidu.

4. It is further stated that the said Ramasamy Naidu had earlier exchanged the land with the petitioner's grandmother and thereafter, the property vested with the petitioner, Chinnaiya. Consequently, the patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner.

5. In view of the facts pleaded by the petitioner, if the land has already been classified as private land, there is justification in the petitioner's request for fixation of guideline value in respect of the said property. However, it is the fourth respondent who is the competent authority to consider and decide the same.

Page No. 3 of 5

6. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:

i.

The petitioner shall submit an application before the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy.

ii. Upon receipt of such application, the fourth respondent shall conduct an enquiry and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. iii. No costs.

08.04.2026 JEN To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District.

2.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sanaarpatti Register Office, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

4.The District Registrar, Dindigul.

Page No. 4 of 5

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

JEN 08.04.2026 (2/2) Page No. 5 of 5