Manikkam v. The District Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :24.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) No.9984 of 2024 Manikkam ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Karur District, Karur.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District.
4. The Thasildar, Kadavur, Tharagampatty, Karur District.
5. The Village Administrative Officer, Kelapaguthi Village, Kadavur Taluk, Karur.
6. Selvi ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to calling for the records 1/7
relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in PA.Mu.C1/426/2024 dated 03.05.2024 and quash the same as unconstitutional.
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Sivaram For Respondents :Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate for R1 to R5 Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam for R6
O R D E R
The petitioner assails an order dated 03.05.2024 by which the name of Andiappan was directed to be deleted from the revenue records in respect of Survey No.379/4 and the name of Dadapandithar was directed to be included therein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was issued without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting a proper inquiry. Learned counsel relies upon the patta issued during Fasli 1332 corresponding to the year 1923 to one Kathan. He also relies upon the document at page 12 of the additional typed set filed by the petitioner to contend that the revenue records stood in the name of Andiappan. Because the petitioner was not 2/7
provided an opportunity to place these documents and documents such as the Kist receipts before the District Revenue Officer, learned counsel contends that reconsideration is necessary.
3. In response to these contentions, learned counsel for the sixth respondent relies on typed set dated 16.10.2025. By referring to sale deed dated 22.09.1966 bearing Document No.4148 of 1966, he submits that the sixth respondent traces title from the said document. By referring to the impugned order, he points out that the pre-UDR 'A' Register reflected the name of Maruthayi Ammal. Likewise, he states that the pre-UDR chitta also reflected the name of Maruthayi Ammal. During the UDR period, he points out that the patta was wrongly issued in the name of Andiappan. Hence, learned counsel contends that this is a straightforward case of an error committed during the UDR period. He also points out that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner and that this is evident from 'Reference 4' in the order, wherein the statement of the petitioner and his family members is referred to. He also points out that the petitioner was represented by counsel and that such counsel had filed a detailed counter which was also taken into consideration.
3/7
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that the revenue records from the pre-UDR period and the records from the UDR period have been analysed and the particulars thereof have been set out in a table at internal pages 7 and 8 of the order. Thereafter, at internal page 9, the District Revenue Officer has taken note of sale deed bearing Document No.4148 of 1966. After doing so, a finding is recorded that during the UDR period, the name of Andiappa Samban was wrongly recorded under Patta No.101. The relevant finding is as under: 4/7
After recording such finding, the District Revenue Officer also examined the entries in the encumbrance certificates. The conclusion that the name of Andiappan should be deleted from the revenue records has been reached on this basis.
5. As contended by learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the impugned order reveals that the petitioner and his family members were heard and that the statement and counter filed by the said parties were taken into consideration. I find no infirmity in the order impugned by the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without any order to costs. This order will not, however, stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the jurisdictional civil court with regard to title disputes. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.10.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN 5/7
To
1. The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Karur District, Karur.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, Karur District.
4. The Thasildar, Kadavur, Tharagampatty, Karur District.
5. The Village Administrative Officer, Kelapaguthi Village, Kadavur Taluk, Karur.
6/7
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN 24.10.2025 7/7