Pandiselvam A v. District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :06.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) No.9558 of 2025 A.Pandiselvam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. District Collector, Pudukottai District.

2. The District Revenue Officer, / Additional District Executive Magistrate, Pudukottai District.

3. Govindan ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No. D3/2131576/2024 pending on the file of 2nd Respondent and the consequential impugned order dated 05.11.2024 passed by 2nd Respondent and quash the same as it is illegal.

For Petitioner :Mr. M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy For Respondents :Mr.K.Balasubramani Spl.Government Pleader for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 1/5

O R D E R

An interim order dated 05.11.2024 of the District Revenue officer is challenged in this writ petition. In spite of service of notice and the name of the third respondent being printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the third respondent. Therefore, the matter is proceeded with in the absence of the thirrd respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the deed of assignment issued in the name of the petitioner's brother Vellaichamy, in the year 1994. He pointed out that his brother executed a settlement deed in his favour on 08.11.2023. By referring to the complaint made by the third respondent before the District Revenue Officer, learned counsel contends that material facts relating to the assignment in favour of the petitioner's brother were suppressed. Learned counsel also points out that the District Revenue Officer does not have the authority to restrain registration of documents relating to the relevant property.

2/5

3. Learned Special Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the first and second respondents. He submits that the impugned order has been issued in a proceeding before the District Revenue Officer alleging that UDR errors were committed.

4. In a proceeding relating to alleged UDR errors, interim orders may be issued in relation to the revenue records. An order restraining registration of documents relating to the property would lie outside the scope of proceedings for correction of alleged UDR errors. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that it is only an interim order and the petition for correction of alleged UDR errors is pending before the second respondent, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of such petition on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, Vellaichamy and the third respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. This writ petition is disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is 3/5

closed.

06.11.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To

1. District Collector, Pudukottai District.

2. The District Revenue Officer, / Additional District Executive Magistrate, Pudukottai District.

4/5

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

PKN 06.11.2025 5/5