Bahurudeen v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.(MD).No.16547 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12572 and 12574 of 2025 Bahurudeen ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manamelkudi, Pudukottai District.

2. The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

3. Muthuselvam ... 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 the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Pa.Mu.2236/2024/A4 dated 15.04.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate 1/6

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 15.04.2025 cancelling the patta transfer order passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner and restoring the patta in the name of Ramu namely the father of the 3rd respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Jeya Priya, learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. According to the petitioner, 0.08.0 ares of land in S.No.236/5 in Mumpalai Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District belongs to him and his brother. The patta for the subject property was issued by the 2nd respondent in Patta No.941 based on the long possession and enjoyment of the the above mentioned property by the petitioner. 2/6

The 3rd respondent challenged the Patta Transfer Order of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after noting A-register for the subject property originally stood in the name of the 3rd respondent's father namely Ramu in Patta No.591 set aside the patta transfer order passed by the 2nd respondent mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any documents to substantiate his rights over the subject property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is vitiated by error of jurisdiction. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. As mentioned earlier, in the old A-register, the name of the 3rd respondent's father was mentioned with Patta No.591. Subsequently, the petitioner got Patta Transfer Order in his favour without producing any documents. On the objection raised by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent set aside the Patta Transfer Order and restored the revenue documents in the name of the 3rd respondent's father namely Ramu. When 3/6

the petitioner has no documents to create any cloud over the title, we cannot say the order passed by the 1st respondent based on the old A-Register is without jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the 1st respondent in this writ petition.

7. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is so advised, it is open to him to challenge the order passed by the 1st respondent before the Revisional Authority viz., the District Revenue Officer. If any such revision is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the said authority on its own merits within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by anything said in this order.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 19.06.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm 4/6

To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manamelkudi, Pudukottai District.

2. The Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

rgm W.P.(MD).No.16547 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12572 and 12574 of 2025 19.06.2025 6/6