A.Kannan v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :25.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) Nos.9863 and 9865 of 2025 A.Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai.
4. Rathinam ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in his Proceeding in Pa.Mu.2654/2009/A6, dated 19.05.2017 and consequential Impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondent in his Proceedings in Ni.Mu.T5/10526/2017, dated 10.11.2023 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi 1/7
For Respondents :Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Lenin Kumar for R4
O R D E R
The fourth respondent herein had filed an appeal on 01.06.2009 before the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the petitioner. By order dated 19.05.2017, the appeal was allowed. The Petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer. Such revision petition dated 21.06.2017 was rejected by order dated 10.11.2023. Both these orders are impugned herein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent herein did not join the other co-sharers as parties to proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer. He further submits that the fourth respondent is only entitled to assert claims in respect of 12 cents and not in respect of the entire extent of 60 cents. Therefore, he contends that the orders impugned herein cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent refutes these 2/7
contentions. He submits that the petitioner's vendor asserted title under an unregistered document executed in the year 1982. The sale deeds dated 15.07.2004 and 19.02.2007 in favour of the petitioner were based on the unregistered document executed in 1982. As a result, he submits that the petitioner obtained patta in respect of the entire extent of 60 cents. Upon raising a grievance by way of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, after taking note of all the material documents, learned counsel submits that the appeal was allowed and the appellate order was affirmed in revision. He submits that no case is made out for interference.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader invited my attention to the operative paragraphs of the order of the District Revenue Officer. He submits that concurrent orders have been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer and that no case is made out for interference.
5. On perusal of the order of the District Revenue Officer, it is noticeable that these submissions of the petitioner herein, who was the revision petitioner therein and the submissions of the fourth respondent 3/7
herein were taken into account. In addition, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and material documents were taken note of. Thereafter, in relevant part, the following finding was recorded: 4/7
6. In effect, both the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Revenue Officer took note of the fact that the petitioner's vendor Muthu Narayanan had asserted title under unregistered document executed in the year 1982. The relevant property had been purchased by five persons and by virtue of the unregistered document, the petitioner's vendor subsequently proceeded to execute sale deeds dated 15.07.2004 and 19.02.2007 in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that the patta in the name of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled was affirmed in revision. I find no infirmity in these concurrent orders. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs by leaving it open to the petitioner to assert title claims through a competent civil court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.10.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN 5/7
To
1. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
3. The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai.
6/7
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN 25.10.2025 7/7