M.Subburaman v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Writ Petition(MD)No.15024 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.11263 of 2025 M.Subburaman ..Petitioner Vs 1.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.Radhakrishnan 3.Boopathi 4.Thulaisram ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to g.K.gp.6/33 702/2023 dated 06.03.2025 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, restore the patta in favour on the basis of the petitioner's title deeds. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Ms.K.Malathi Addl. Govt. Pleader (R1) 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of UDR entries.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, who took notice for the first respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the properties situated in S.Nos. 287/789, 287/790, and 287/791 originally belonged to one Ramasamy Naidu, and he bequeathed the entire property in favour of his wife, Subbuthayammal. Subsequently, the said Subbuthayammal executed a registered "Will" dated 27.12.2006 bequeathing the entire property in favour of the petitioner. During updation of UDR records, the property was wrongly entered in the names of the respondents 2 to 4. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before the first respondent seeking correction of erroneous entry and restoration of the revenue records in his name.

4. The first respondent, during enquiry, found that the names of the petitioner and his predecessor in interest have not been mentioned in the Ground Rent Register prepared in the year 1959. It was found that the land in S.No.287/789 was registered in the name of the Sithi Vinayagar temple, 2/4

the land in S.No.287/790 was registered as a water tank, and the land in S.No.287/791 was registered as a temple in the Ground Rent Register prepared in the year 1959. Taking into consideration the said fact, the first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner that the petitioner is not able to substantiate the rights of his predecessor in interest.

5. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the old settlement register, the property stood in the name of the petitioner's predecessor in interest. However, the petitioner has not produced the said settlement register before the first respondent. Taking into consideration the Ground Rent Register prepared in the year 1959, the first respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove his rights over the subject properties. I do not find any error in the order passed by the first respondent. If the petitioner got any right over the subject property, it is always open to him to approach the regular civil court to establish his right.

6. With the above-said liberty, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 04.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn 3/4

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

skn To The District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

Writ Petition(MD)No.15024 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.11263 of 2025 04.06.2025 4/4