Sagundhaladevi v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :08.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P(MD)No.16814 of 2025 Sagundhaladevi ... Petitioner .Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudu District.
4.Muthulakshmi 5.Muthu ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified 1/7
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Nee.Mu(D6)2179586/2024, dated 30.04.2003, dated 31.5.2024,quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta jointly in the name of Petitioner and her children within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran 1 to 3 Addl.Govt. Pleader
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dismissing the revisional application filed by the Petitioner objecting to the inclusion of the names of one Pottayammal @ Thirumalaiammal and others in respect of the property in S.No.73/1A in Patta No.l812.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3.According to the Petitioner, the subject property situate in S.No.73/1A Guruvarpatti Village originally belong to Mariappa 2/7
Reddiar. After his death, the property devolved on the respondents 4 and 5, who are all the legal representatives. They executed a registered sale deed, dated 21.10.2016 in favour of Petitioner's husband conveying the subject property. 4.The third respondent erroneously issued patta for the subject property in favour of legal heirs of one Pethu Reddiar namely, Pottayammal @ Thirumalaiammal and others. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, as they had no document to substantiate their right over the subject property. The second respondent cancelled the patta issued in their favour by the third respondent and restored the patta in the name of original owner Mariappa Reddiar. Aggrieved by the restoration of patta in the name of Mariappa Reddiar instead of Petitioner's husband palanisamy, she preferred a revision before the third respondent and the same was dismissed. Hence, the Petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.
5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the legal heirs of Mariappa Reddiar sold the subject property in favour of Petitioner's husband Palanisamy under registered document dated 21.10.2016. In these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 3/7
are not justified in restoring the patta in respect of the subject property in favour of Mariappa Reddiar.
6.A reading of the impugned order passed by the first respondent would indicate legal heirs of Pethu Reddiar Pottaiyammal @ Thirumalaiammal failed to produce any document substantiating their right over the subject property. After recording the same, patta issued in their favour by the third respondent was cancelled. However, without noticing the sale in favour of the Petitioner by the legal heirs of Mariappa Reddiar, the first respondent had restored the patta in favour of Mariappa Reddiar. Once the subject property was sold to the Petitioner under registered document by legal heirs of Mariappa Reddiar, there is no justification for restoration of patta in the name of Mariappa Reddiar.
7.Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, insofar as issuance of patta in favour of Mariappa Reddiar, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the first respondent to consider the request of the Petitioner in the light of the registered sale deed, dated 21.10.2016 executed by the legal heirs of Mariappa Reddiar in favour of Petitioner's husband Palanisamy. The first respondent shall pass final orders on merits after issuance of notice to the Petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, 4/7
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
08.07.2025 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudu District.
5/7
6/7
S.SOUNTHAR.,J.
vsn ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.16814 of 2025 08.07.2025 7/7