← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/17912/2025disposed of

P.Praveena v. The District Revenue Officer

2025-10-23Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)No.17912 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13710, 13711 & 16962 of 2025 1.P.Praveena 2.P.Vanitha

...Petitioners

Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer, O/o District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur District.

3. The Tahsildar, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.

4. Natarajan

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 2323309/2024/U(2) dated 24.05.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to restore the status quo ante with reference to the patta No. 1385 for S.F.No.13/19B in Paalamputhur Village, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur 1/6

District, within a time frame as stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Ramu for R4

ORDER

An order dated 24.05.2025 of the District Revenue Officer cancelling the patta issued to the petitioners and restoring revenue records in relation to S.No. 13/19B in the name of C.Ulagan Kandiyar and Chinnasami Kandiyar is assailed in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to sale deed dated 21.09.1978(document No.2647 of 1978) and contends that the other three legal heirs of Ulagan Kandiyar, namely, Chinnakannu, Duraisami and Manickam transferred their respective 15.5 cents of land to Chinnasami Kandiyar under the said document. According to the petitioners, Chinnasamy Kandiyar is their great grandfather and that the entire 55.5 cents was inherited by them after the demise of their grandfather, Nagaraj, and father, Pitchai. Without appreciating the implications of document No.2647 of 1978, it is stated that the impugned order was issued.

2/6

3. These contentions are refuted by learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Learned counsel contends that Chinnasami Kandiyar had one son and four daughters. It is submitted by him that the property in S.No.13/19B was provided to the daughter Anjali as an oral gift by way of sridhana at the time of her marriage. According to the 4th respondent, the said Anjali and Appavu were in possession of the property until their lifetime and, thereafter, their 2 sons, namely, Gajendran and Sekar are in possession pursuant to an oral partition between them. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the 4th respondent that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

4. Learned Government Advocate invited my attention to the impugned order and pointed out that only 40 cents from and out of the 62 cents in S.No. 13/19B was conveyed to Chinnasamy Kandiyar under document No.2647 of 1978. Therefore, learned Government Advocate contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

5. On perusal of document No.2647 of 1978, the contention that only 40 cent was conveyed by the other legal heirs of Ulagan Kandiyar to Chinnasami Kandiyar is liable to be accepted. However, the said Chinnasami Kandiyar had inherited 15.5 cents as his share. If such share were to be added to the 40 cents 3/6

purchased by him under document No.2647 of 1978, he would become the owner of 55.5 cents and not 40 cents. To that extent, the order impugned herein warrants interference.

6.Therefore, the impugned order is modified by holding that the revenue records relating to S.No.13/19B be mutated to reflect the name of Chinnasami Kandiyar as regards 55.5 cents and the name of C.Ulagan Kandiyar as regards the remaining extent of 6.5 cents. In all other respects, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. This writ petition is disposed of on these terms by leaving it open to the rival parties to work out their remedies before a competent civil court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

23.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 4/6

To

1. The District Revenue Officer, O/o District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur District.

3. The Tahsildar, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.

5/6

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J.

RJR W.P.(MD)No.17912 of 2025 23.10.2025 6/6