Paccha v. Kuttivanam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and connected miscellaneous petitions Paccha ... Appellant in W.A.1931/25 Balathai ... Appellant in W.A.1932/25 Chinnammal ... Appellant in W.A.1933/25 Vs.

Kuttivanam ... R1 in W.A.1931/25 Bommakkal ... R1 in W.A.1932/25 Thothu Pillai ... R1 in W.A.1933/25 The District Collector, Dindigul District.

The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

... Respondents 2 & 3 in all appeals PRAYER :- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.22284, 22285 and 22283 of 2024 dated 20.09.2024.

1/5

For Appellant(in all appeals) : Mr.S.Balaji For R1(in all appeals) : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For R2 & R3 : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) The 1st respondent in all the appeals/writ petitioners were assigned lands comprised in Survey Nos.382/7, 382/4 and 382/6 respectively, at Renganayakkanpatti village and pattas were issued to them. While so, in the year 2023, the said pattas were mutated in the name of the appellants herein. The writ petitioners made representations to the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar, who after enquiry, by order dated 19.05.2023, had directed to cancel the pattas stand in the name of the appellants herein and directed to restore pattas in the name of the writ petitioners. Since the said order was not implemented, the writ petitioners filed the abovesaid writ petitions and this Court by impugned orders, allowed the writ petitions as prayed for. As against the said orders, these appeals have been filed by third parties. 2/5

2.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that challenging the orders dated 19.05.2023 of the 2nd respondent, the appellants filed appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, and they also filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.115, 88 and 108 of 2023 respectively, before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, and the writ petitioners have also been arrayed as defendants in those suits. However, suppressing the same, the writ petitioners filed writ petitions without even impleading the appellants as parties and obtained orders behind the back. Hence, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

3.

The pendency of the appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the civil suits is not disputed by the writ petitioners. While so, it is not proper for them to suppress the same and obtain orders from this Court without impleading the appellants in the writ petitions. The writ petitioners are not entitled to equitable or discretionary relief, as they have not approached this Court with clean hands. Thus, the orders impugned are liable to be interfered with.

3/5

4.

Accordingly, the impugned orders in W.P(MD)No.22284, 22285 and 22283 of 2024 dated 20.09.2024, are set aside and the Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 10.04.2026 Index : Yes / No : Ye / No bala To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District.

2. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

bala 10.04.2026 5/5