Thiruppathi v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Thiruppathi ... Petitioner .Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Tahsildar, Kayathar, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in Oo.Mu.(D.6)142804/2025, dated 16.4.2025 by returning the Petitioner's revision petition and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to number the Petitioner's revision Petition and decide the revision petition in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy 1/5

For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan 1 to 3 Govt.Advocate

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the revision filed by the Petitioner challenging the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the request of the Petitioner seeking cancellation of existing patta in respect of S.No.101/11, situated at Nagampatti Village, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

2.Mr.M.Gangatharan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The second respondent passed an order rejecting the application of the Petitioner seeking cancellation of patta on 1.2.2022. Subsequently, revision petition was filed by the Petitioner before the first respondent, beyond the period of limitation. Therefore the impugned order was passed by the first respondent rejecting the revision petition filed by the Petitioner. 2/5

4.Rule 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Rules enables the first respondent to entertain the revisions which were filed beyond the period of limitation,if the revision Petitioner is able to satisfy the authorities concerned with regard to sufficient cause for his failure to present the revision in time. Therefore, the first respondent ought not to have rejected the revision petition filed by the Petitioner instead he should have returned the revision papers with a direction to file condone delay petition. 5.In view of the same the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Oo.Mu.(D.6)142804/2025, dated 16.4.2025 is set aside. The Petitioner is directed to represent the revision petition along with a condone delay petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

On representation of such revision petition with a condone delay petition, the first respondent is directed to consider the condone delay petition filed by the Petitioner and pass orders on the same, on its own merits. 6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

20.06.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No 3/5

Internet : Yes / No vsn To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Thoothukudi.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Tahsildar, Kayathar, Thoothukudi District.

S.SOUNTHAR.,J.

vsn ORDER MADE IN 4/5

20.06.2025 5/5