A.Pooranam v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP (MD) No.13827 and 17670 of 2025

1. A.Pooranam

2. A.Selvakumar

3. Indirani ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Tahsildar, Pudukkottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3. Ramanathan

4. Lakshmi

5. Meenakshi

6. Rekha

7. Arjun Murugappan

8. Lakshmi ... Respondents 1/5

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings in Ni.Mu.A4/0328/2025, dated 11.06.2025 and quash the same. For Petitioners :Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.K.K.Samy for R3 to R8

O R D E R

An order dated 11.06.2025 of the Revenue Divisional Officer is challenged in this writ petition. By inviting my attention to the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the validity of Document No.1349 of 1974 has been adjudicated by the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of relegating parties to a civil court. Consequently, he contends that the impugned order calls for interference.

2. Learned counsel for the private respondents refutes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. After pointing out that the petitioners purchased the property in the year 2014 and that the patta stood in their name thereafter, he further states that the petitioners created a fabricated document and obtained patta transfer on that basis. He points 2/5

out that such order was obtained without notice. He also placed on record a copy of Document No.1349 of 1974 executed by one Neelamurugan in favour of Senthilnayagam and the document relied on by the petitioners bearing the same document number. Although the affidavit in support of the petition refers to the petitioners' father Arumugam, as being the owner, he submits that there is no document in the name of Arumugam.

3. Upon considering the rival contentions, it is clear that the dispute hinges on questions of fact. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioners. It also does not appear as if material documents were not taken into account while issuing the order impugned herein. In these circumstances, in view of the existence of an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by granting leave to the petitioner to file a revision petition before the jurisdictional District Revenue Officer. If such petition is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the District Revenue Officer shall receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question 3/5

of limitation. It is needless to say that all parties concerned should be provided a reasonable opportunity before a decision is taken by the District Revenue Officer. The registry is directed to return the original order copy to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

18.09.2025 NCC :No Internet :Yes Index :No PKN To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Tahsildar, Pudukkottai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

4/5

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

PKN 18.09.2025 5/5