K.Maruthiah v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR K.Maruthiah ...

Petitioner Vs 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

2 The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, Madurai.

...

Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to Pa.Mu.En E-2450123/2024/J, dated 13.02.2025, on the file of 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, ultra-vires, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue patta in favour of the petitioner.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Nedunchezian, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by first respondent, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, seeking deletion of one Karuppiah alias Palanisamy's name in the revenue records, pertaining to the property situate in Survey No.1313/2, Katchaikatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.

2. The petitioner herein submitted an application before first respondent, seeking deletion of one Karuppiah alias Palanisamy's name in the revenue records, pertaining to the subject property. The said application submitted by the petitioner was rejected, on the ground that the name of Karuppiah alias Palanisamy was included in the revenue records during UDR updation and, therefore, the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner is the District Revenue Officer. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even prior to UDR updation, the name of Karuppiah alias Palanisamy had been incorporated in the revenue records and, therefore, the application submitted

by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer is very well maintainable. However, the petitioner has not produced any records to substantiate his claim that the name of Karuppiah alias Palanisamy was incorporated in the revenue records even prior to UDR updation.

4. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by first respondent. It is for the petitioner to file an application before the District Revenue Officer, who is the competent authority to decide the question with regard to correction of UDR records.

5. With this clarification, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No12769 of 2025 is closed. 23.06.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No dixit To:

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

2 The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, Madurai.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dixit 23.06.2025