P.Pon Senthil v. The Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :25.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) No.12584 of 2024 P.Pon Senthil ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illupur, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
4. The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5. C.Periyannan
6. S.Ramesh Kumar 1/7
7. R.Logeshwaran
8. A.Elumalai ... Respondents (R6 to R8 are impleaded vide Court order dated 25.07.2025) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Ni.Mu.T5/1183368/2023 dated 13.03.2024 ordered by the 2nd respondent and order bearing Ni.Mu.5961/2008/A3 dated 11.07.2023 by the 3rd respondent with regard to ordering to restore the patta in the name of Periyannan S/o.Chinnasamy for the lands in S.Nos. 36/1 A, 84 and 85 Meaputhakudi Village, quash the same and order to give patta for the punja lands in S.No 36/1A, 84 and 85 Meaputhakudi Village, in the name of the petitioner and his two sisters.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.R.G.Mohan For Respondents :Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.M.Mohamed Zamil for R6 to R8 R5 - Expired
O R D E R
An order dated 13.03.2024 of the District Revenue Officer and earlier order dated 11.07.2023 of the Revenue Divisional Officer are assailed in this writ petition.
2/7
2. The petitioner and his sisters assert title to the lands described in paragraph 3 of the petition as the legal heirs of one Thiru.Ponnusamy. The petitioner relies upon pattas issued in the name of Ponnusamy and his predecessor-in-interest Sankaran. Upon approaching the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner's request was rejected and it was directed that the patta be mutated in the name of Periyanan as per the UDR records. The said order was affirmed by the District Revenue Officer in revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property has changed hands multiple times and that on each occasion, patta transfer orders were issued. In light of these developments, he submits that the cancellation of these pattas and the restoration of the status as per the UDR records is not justifiable.
4. Learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 responded to these contentions by referring to O.S.No.154 of 1980, which was filed before the Sub-Court, Pudukottai by Sangan, through whom the petitioner claims. He points out that the suit was dismissed by concluding that Sanjeevi Iyer did not have the authority to transfer the suit property in 3/7
favour of Ariyanachiappan. After pointing out that no appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree, learned counsel submits that the said judgment and decree formed the basis for the orders impugned herein. Hence, learned counsel submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned order.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader invited my attention to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer examined the resettlement register and the UDR record and found that those records stood in the name of Periyanan. Thereafter, after taking note of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.154 of 1980, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed cancellation of Patta No. 866 and the restoration of the name of the UDR pattadhar Periyanan.
6. On perusal of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, as contended by learned Special Government Pleader, it is noticeable that the pre-UDR settlement register and the UDR records were examined. It was noticed on that basis that the name of Periyanan was recorded therein. Thereafter, in the operative portion of the order of the District Revenue Officer, it was recorded as under:
4/7
7. The judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, is also in record. The Sub-Judge has clearly recorded that the transfer made by Sanjeevi Iyer is not valid. The decree of the civil court has not been 5/7
challenged as on date and remains binding. In those circumstances, I do not find infirmity in the above conclusions of the District Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs by leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, including the impleading petition in W.M.P.(MD) No.17852 of 2025, are closed.
25.09.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To
1. The Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
2. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illupur, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
4. The Tahsildar, Viralimalai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
6/7
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
PKN 25.09.2025 7/7