R.Manickam v. The District Revenue Officer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Writ Petition(MD)No.18826 of 2025 R.Manickam ..Petitioner Vs 1 The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate Office, Madurai - 625 020.
2 The Tahsildhar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the enquiry and speedy disposal in UDR error in Survey No. Survey main No.80(1) and old Survey No.123- 3 Acres 85 Cents, old Survey No.152-96 cents, old Survey No.153-1 Acre 15 cents and old Survey No.154-1 Acre 53 cents(Approximately) situated at Vandiyur, Andarkottaram Panchayat, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2022 within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan Govt. Advocate 1/5
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2022, requesting correction of the UDR records in respect of the properties comprised in Survey No.80/1, Vandiyur Village, Andarkottaram Panchayat, Madurai District.
2. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Gangatharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents and perused the materials available on records.
3. According to the petitioner, his father, R.Raman, was assigned 6 acres and 64 cents of land in the above-mentioned survey number by the Government in recognition of his participation in the Second World War. The petitioner's father converted the land into agricultural land and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1982, the petitioner's father passed away, and thereafter, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. During the UDR updation, the subject property was wrongly classified as a "Water body" in the revenue records. Consequently, the petitioner submitted representations before the first respondent, through his advocate, on 15.12.2022 and 21.12.2022, seeking correction of the revenue records by deleting the entry "Government 2/5
Poramboke Odai." However, the said representations have not been considered. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. A perusal of the assignment document produced in the typed set of papers indicates that the petitioner's father was granted permission to temporarily occupy 6.64 acres of land in Survey No.80/1 for one fasli year (Fasli Year 1356), commencing from 23.03.1947. Therefore, the submission made by the petitioner that the property was assigned to his father cannot be accepted. It is evident that the petitioner's father was only granted a temporary right of occupation and not an assignment of the land.
5. A perusal of the revenue documents produced in the Additional Typed Set of Papers dated 04.08.2025 indicates that the old 'A' Register relating to the subject property in S.No.80/1 clearly classifies it as "Government Poramboke Odai." Likewise, the old 'A' Register for S.No. 80/1A, measuring an extent of 2.24.5 hectares, is also classified as "Government Poramboke Odai." The field map and sketch produced in the typed set of papers further indicate that an Odai passes through Survey No. 80, and the water portion therein is classified as S.No.80/1. Since both the revenue records and the FMB pertaining to the subject property classify it as Odai Poramboke, this Court is not inclined to issue any positive direction to the first respondent.
3/5
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner's family members have been in possession of the subject property from the year 1946 and, therefore, they have perfected title over the property.
7. This Court is of the view that the claim of adverse possession set up by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition and the same can only be considered by the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the Civil Court in the manner known to law. No costs. .
25.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1 The District Revenue Officer, Madurai Collectorate Office, Madurai - 625 020.
2 The Tahsildhar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
4/5
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
skn Writ Petition(MD)No.18826 of 2025 25.08.2025 5/5