Shanmuganathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.12455 of 2025 Shanmuganathan ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.

2.Muruganandham Represented by is Power of Attorney, T.Muthukumar.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.19314 of 2025 dated 17.07.2025 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Government Pleader for R1.

1/6

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The appellant herein filed W.P.(MD)No.19314 of 2025 challenging the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram effecting mutation in the revenue record to his prejudice. The property originally stood in the name of Ponnathal. According to the appellant, the property belonged to his father as well as Ponnathal even though patta stood only in the name of Ponathal. The legal heirs of Ponnathal had executed an unregistered release deed in favour of the appellant's father. Based on the same, the revenue record was mutated in favour of the appellant's father. A consent deed was also said to have been executed.

2.Whileso after a lapse of 25 years, Ponnathal's son / Muruganandham moved the Revenue Divisional Officer challenging the mutation. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide order dated 01.07.2025 had directed restoration of patta in favour of Ponnathal. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.07.2025 dismissed the writ petition in the following terms:- 2/6

"3.Against the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision before the District Revenue Officer under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act.

4.A perusal of the impugned order would suggest that the Petitioner has effectively participated in the proceedings before the first respondent and there is no violation of natural justice principles. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above Writ Petition.

5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to move the revisional authority, for necessary relief, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

Assailing the said order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

3.By no stretch of imagination can the order of the learned Single Judge be said to be irregular or erroneous. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 566 (Vishwas Footwear Company Limited, Chennai Vs. District Collector, Kancheepuram). According to him, a revenue authority cannot 3/6

adjudicate rival title disputes. He would also add that when the revenue record had reflected a particular name for more than twenty years, it cannot be altered to his prejudice and that the person who wants to upset the status quo must go to the civil Court.

4.The appellant had invoked the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge declined to exercise his jurisdiction in favour of the appellant on the ground that there is an appeal remedy. We cannot term this approach as irregular. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 05.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 4/6

To:

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

ias 05.08.2025 6/6